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

Current issues

Durzatwink and Styrofoam1994

These two seem to be taking light-hearted friendship a little too far, with fake warnings left on talk pages and this sockpuppetry report. I know it's only good faith humour, so obviously I'm not asking for the hammer of Thor on this one, but perhaps someone could step in, delete the report and tell each user to use their time more productively? (Lovebirds...) haz (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the situation for some time since coming across User:Styrofoam1994 via my contribution of new editors sweep. I think he just wants to play. Deleted the SSP as test page. A couple of more eyes with some slight steering in the right direction might help. Agathoclea (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that closed the first SSP case and did the blocks therein. Note I made User:Rws_killer the master as it's the oldest account. The newer (deleted) SSP case is really interesting. Durzatwink's edits are similar to the other socks and he appear just a couple of days after the blocks I did. Based on that alone, it looks like a new sock. But the odd parts are Durzatwink calling Styrofoam1994 his "adoptee" (when Durzatwink's claiming he's a new user) and Styrofoam1994 making attacks (like "perv") on his page and also impersonating an admin--I'm warning Styrofoam on both these points. In summation, I think we should RFCU the whole bunch and sort this out. Agathaclea is right to be suspicious, but I think we need to dig deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Their friendship seems to have cooled extremely suddenly. I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. (see User:Sanjay517) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here at all, but you should see User talk:MasterofMinds also. --omtay38 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Styrofoam1994's Rollback privileges be revoked? Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that unless my sockpuppet suspicions are confirmed in some way, Styrofoam should probably keep his privileges. After all, rollback is no more of a big deal than using Twinkle, as the page itself states. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have evidence to believe that MasterofMinds is the sockpuppet master of User:Sanjay517 Here Here Here}}. The sockpuppet also admit that he has controll of the account which is stated [talk:Sanjay517&diff=188689866&oldid=188689336 here]. There seems to be two ip adresses involved which are 76.98.1.12 and [76.98.7.176]. As you can see, they both participated in User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat‎. Altough most of the time these accounts did not cause any harm to Wikipedia, there was 1 incident in activated me to post this and that is Here. Although it does not seem too bad, I consider it as vandalism. If any of you want to, you cant make a case here WP:SSP. Happy editing ^_^--DurzaTwink^TALK 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the teachers of that particular school could be alerted to put a lesson on on-line privacy protection onto the curriculum. This might solve most of the problems. Anyway the real crux of the matter is whether $NAMEOFPUPPETMASTER is banned in the wiki sense of the word.

trouble was further brewing at WP:ANI.

What troubles me is the fact that DurzaTwink gets frequently referred to by his real or imagined real-life name by the other parties of this conflict - which appears to be a reallife schoolyard conflict which has spilled over into wikipedia. One way of stopping that would be to delete the "Game".

AS far as rollback privileges are concerned this is clearly a case of rollback used in a conflict. Agathoclea (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mfd now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat. -- Agathoclea (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a limit as to how many cases of sockpuppetry a user can make against another? Styrofoam1994 is planning to make a 3rd case stated here and to be quite honest, it is getting very tiresome to constantly defened against these accusations every time since I have other work that must be done. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these accusations in which he is attacking me with, has consumed my time for making good and constructive edit. Is there some way that the admins can set up something that would seperate us for the time being untill we cool down and come to terms? Thank you --DurzaTwink^TALK 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Alison confirmed that Durzatwink was Nyu pendragon with a CU, as seen at the link that Durzat herself (himself?) gave. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is regards to your recent confusion over sex. *cough* himself *cough* lol--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I reopened the sockpuppet case for Durzatwink with that evidence added, here. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 03:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved, with DurzaTwink indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Rws killer. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Durza indefinitely for sockpuppetry and trolling/personal attacks, and Styrofoam for 48 hours for a 3RR violation and personal attacks. I have also revoked Styrofoam's right to use rollback. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been another sock and here the user requests the game page to be deleted, which I am uncomfortable to do as it was me starting the MfD. Uninvolved admin please. Agathoclea (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And another: 96.235.179.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable

Just FYI: [1]. And I'm sure Tim's not the only one. --bainer (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support Tim's comment. The history of the Main Page is a joke. - auburnpilot talk 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure this was done with good intentions... boy, this strikes me as spectacularly bad judgement. It also highlights a function that could be used in ways less benevolent. This ignores the fact that the Main page appears to have been deleted once *(Per CSD G6!) in the process, albiet briefly. I'm a new admin, so maybe there's conversation on this topic I've missed... But, I have to agree with Tim's comments. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim has already blocked BetacommandBot for one week, due to "abuse of system resources". [2] - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so how did BCB, a non-admin bot, edit a protected page. I'm seeing some odd things going on in the page history with restoring deleted edits, etc. And shouldn't something like this get approved somewhere before its done? Isn't this the purpose of WP:BAG? I know there is a technical switch that would make the main page undeletable by anyone including the devs, which isn't flicked since we don't want to do anything that can never be undone. So this is basically doing that (aking it undeletable) the way I see it, which is somewhat against consensus IMHO MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits were made in userspace and the page was moved by an administrator into the mainspace. Nakon 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this discussed anywhere beforehand? --Rory096 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no approval and no consensus that this was need - a well deserved week long block. The main page history is destroyed now. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to selectivly delete prior revisions like oversight but not as extreme). If it cant be automated, maybe hand-deleting (oy!) will be required. Worst case, there might be a consensus to oversight the interjected edits (yea I know its against policy, but I'm not seeing the harm). MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight works on a single revision at a time; good luck finding an oversighter that's willing to go through 5,000 revisions by hand. ;-) Kirill 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to BCBs history, it made about 1100 of the edits to that page, still it would be an unfair burden on an uninvolved oversighter to have to do that. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the whole point is that nobody other than the devs can delete pages with over 5000 edits. They'd have to be the ones to remove all of the bot edits, if I'm remembering correctly. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Betacommandbot's block is any more "well deserved" than a block of the administrators who collaborated on this venture would be. All the bot did was make a bunch of null edits to a user subpage. Mike R (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have blocked the users involved as well; the administrators, in particular, are expected to consider the consequences before they do something of this sort. Kirill 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The admins involved obviously screwed up, but remember blocks are preventive, not punitive. --Rory096 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously discussed somewhere beforehand. My guess is IRC. Mike R (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason the bot was blocked and the admins weren't is that 1. Tim was afraid of the bot doing this to many other pages and had to act quickly. 2. Bots go through a special process to get the BOT flag and that process allows harsher action when they mess up, Admins, generally have the grace of an RfC/AN/Arbcom discussion. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think blocking Betacommandbot is justified, since as far as I know, it isn't approved for this (though maybe I'm wrong, given the massive list. At any rate, it seems like it should definitely have been discussed first (on wiki), and was probably a bad idea. Apparently, East718 was the one to do the move, and it was done in his userspace. It might also make sense to block him and Betacommand. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

{unindent) Tim Starling has proposed here [3] that East 718 be de-sysoped for his behavior in this matter. What forum should this request be discussed in? MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the proper venue would be, but I'd assume ArbCom. Thankfully one of the devs has removed the bot's junk edits from the Main Page history.[4] - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of silly anyway. Why do we restrict administrator tools like delete and protect to administrators? Because we trust them to know what they're doing. We restricted deletions to pages with less than 5000 revisions because it's not obvious that it's going to break the site. This is something completely different — an administrator clicked a button that said "Delete the main page". An administrator should not click such a button unless they actually wish to delete the main page. Testing is for test-wikis — this is not the sort of thing you mess about with on the main page of the 8th most used website in the world! Applying restrictions like this is not needed if we have an appropriate mechanism for distinguishing prospective administrators who know what they are doing with those who don't — or a culture of caution with regards to administrative functions. As for the use of the bot, we have a bot approvals group for a reason. I am aware that Betacommand is on it, and should know better than this. — Werdna talk 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What need has there ever been to delete the main page? Or move it? Why are the tabs even there? The delete tab is currently hidden, but why not just remove the options altogether? Lara❤Love 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:9625 seems to indicate it won't ever happen. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main concern here is not with the end result (making the main page undeletable) but rather the means to get there (the apparent unilateral and unsupported move by two editors to dump 1200 junk edits into the main page) which represented an unintended exploit of a recently hacked-in safety feature and is rather an object lesson in how to use said safety feature to be disruptive. The two editors in question were NOT trying to be disruptive per se, but now it is plainly clear that one could use their means to be disruptive. I am not sure that the recommended blockings and/or desysoppings are justified or not, but this does seem like the wrong way to go about doing things. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is actually good that there is something highly visible for compromised admin accounts to delete or vandalize. A bit of good old delete-the-main-page-for-lulz will send people searching for stewards pretty fast. The latest case was desysopped in three minutes... – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla doesn't appear to have reached any sort of consensus. In fact, the page reads like more people agree that there's no need to have the option to delete the main page. Certain pages just don't need the option. Considering the delete and move tabs serve no useful purpose on these pages, and having them leaves the risk of abuse and server lockdown, why not just remove the option? Having the main page to the (currently) 9th most viewed website in the world be down for a few minutes is bad times when it's pointless and avoidable. Lara❤Love 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Bugzilla is not consensus-based. Brion Vibber, the lead developer and Wikimedia CTO, resolved the bug as "won't fix" and then marked it closed. But that bug was filed as a request to have the feature exist and be enabled by default in the core software. A Wikimedia-specific hack (as Tim has now implemented) is a different question. I still don't think it's a good idea, for the reason I gave on the bug. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vital tasks

I seem to remember that BCB does some tasks like RFC bot's job, CfD (I don't know what that is), Spamreports, Image moving, and image renaming. What is our contingency plan for it being unable to do those tasks for a week? Yes, I know it does non-free image and orphan image work, but I'm not considering that vital given the existing huge backlogs at those areas. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a contingency plan for such things. The bot system is like the wild west. Everyone runs their own code and there is very little redundancy. I have supported for a long time the division of Betacommandbot's tasks into separate usernames instead of a single username - BetacommandBot 1, BetacommandBot 2, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how complex these tasks are, but the RFC one in particular seems pressing as part of the WP:DR process. How hard would it be for an uninvolved bot operator to code up a quick and dirty substitute? Or is there a by-hand process that explains how to replace the bot with actual editors. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The RFC bot has somewhat complex behavior. I estimate that someone with a lot of experience with bot programming should be able to code a replacement in a day of dedicated work with no interruptions. But it would be better if the code was publicly available (I don't know whether it is). Even then, it might take a few hours for a new operator to get the code running on their machine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, BCB is (as of a discussion in 2007 [5]) proprietary code. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, RFC bot is/was operated by Messedrocker. BCbot seems to handle this task now, though. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell, just unblock the bot. That script isn't running anymore and Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked. --Rory096 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Tim is a developer and I think is an employee of the foundation under Wikipedia:OFFICE#Who_does_office_actions so that might be a consideration in unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not an "office action". Do as you see fit. Rory096 says "Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked". I don't believe Betacommand has learnt any lessons for this, he's a stubborn kind of guy. He certainly didn't make any apologies when I was talking to him about it on IRC. If he does it again, I'll block him again. I've written the script to clean up his mess now, so it won't be so much trouble for me the second time. -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should make sure we get a promise out of him not to do it again (as he seems to have given below), and then consider actions to make sure anything like this doesn't happen again- not only exploiting some fix for some problem in an way that wasn't intended by those who implemented the fix, but also any unapproved, undiscussed bot functions, and to consider splitting BetacommandBot's functions so any one of the functions can be blocked without causing all the others to stop working. --Rory096 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rory096,Ive been working on seperating the accounts, its just not that simple. And Ive been pushed for other requests, see commons:User:BetacommandBot, for the recent image re-naming. As Ive said before this was a single request, and with no future plans on repeating. β^_command 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some back story behind RFC bot. I came up with the idea; Betacommand wrote it for me. It exists under the MIT license at this location. It is supposed to run on my toolserver account, but it takes up too much memory as the result of being somewhat broken. Therefore, it goes down once it reaches the toolserver's threshold of 1GB of RAM, and it is killed off by memory management software. While Betacommand is fixing it, he is using his account (that or the bot's) to continue operations; this is not unheard of, as Betacommand's account and his bot are used as testing vectors for new versions of the software.

The issue behind the bot is that objects in memory are forming too quickly without being given enough time to die off. I am going to slow the refresh rate from 5 minutes to 60 minutes to see if that will allow it to be ran on the toolserver without complication. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know BCB doesn't like to spread his code around, but honestly, I feel like more bots should take up some of his tasks either in case he doesn't wish to run it or a situation like this happens again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note from developer

Tim Starling has sent an email to the wikitech-l list in which he strongly criticizes the practice of adding meaningless revisions to a page. At the very least, everyone should take away the message "don't do that". — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea at the time ... BCBot hadn't quite added enough revisions to make the page undeletable. I have therefore given myself a suitable punishment. I now understand the slippery slope issue this could cause. Graham87 08:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah... what? That's not the point I can't understand that matters. The point I can't understand that matters is why there is so much inertia. Could this not have been discussed publicly, on-wiki? Some lessons need to be drawn from this. And Tim noting that Betacommand seems unwilling or unable to do this, well, that does not inspire confidence. El_C 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page cannot be deleted or moved on any Wikimedia wiki now. Graham87 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it can still be moved. WODUP 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It can't. I just tried on testwiki:Main Page. When you submit the form, you get a big red "You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested." WODUP 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not let admins delete the main page? It is a canary in a coal mine, if an account is compromised or has gone berserk then they often delete the main page and lose their admin bit within 10 minutes. This is a good thing, it keeps the damage to a minimum. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other pages they can delete inappropriately. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Messiness of bot records and COI

Just a note on an issue that's relevant to this case: For the past several days, I've been working on the records over at Wikipedia:Bots/Status. A brief look at through records yields the fact that they're in horrible condition, both inaccurate and out-of-date. There's also the outdated page, Wikipedia:Registered bots. And both of these records don't likely match up with the list of users with a bot flag.

This makes it practically impossible for admins to keep track of bot abuse.

Overall, there appears to be a COI with WP:BOT:

• The bot approvals group are required to be bot owners or programmers themselves, so naturally, they tend to be liberal about handing out bot privileges and may turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, or defend it (that's a speculation -- not an assumption -- of bad faith). Though they take into account the community's commentary, they still have a leading role.
• The bot approvals' group primarily maintains the bot records. Well, again, why should they care about maintaining good records? If they don't, then it's a lot easier to get away with this kind of thing.

I suspect that cleaning up the records and a thorough review of all users flagged or listed as bots would yield the fact that there's more bot abuse going on than people are aware of. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a beancounter, but maybe we could audit the active bots on the project. There should be a list of everyone with a bot flag somewhere, as well as the list of registered bots. We sent a talk page comment to every operator and bot on both lists: "Hey, we're updating records, please update the status of your bot here. If we don't hear from you in a week (or whatever), your bot will be listed as inactive." Whether inactive bots are de-flagged, blocked, or otherwise noted is up to consensus - but, I'd recommend that the operator checks in and updates status before resuming his/her bot's operations. This might also be a good chance to audit approved functions that current bots no longer do, so we can identify functions that other bots might pick up. Just tossing out an idea or two, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that most complaints about bots are not in line with policy, and those that do are dealt with promptly. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are often dealt with quickly but, in some instances, it seems that the previous intervention does not preclude future issues from the same bot operator. Which is frustrating, at best. --Iamunknown 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can get a list of flagged bots from special pages. I'm sure if you offer to compare with the Status and Registered Bots pages, and the user contributions of those bots, and invite updates where needed, the bot community would welcome it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Just a note- the opposite of assuming good faith is not assuming bad faith, it's not assuming good faith. Speculation of bad faith is, therefore, violating AGF just as much as an assumption of bad faith would be. That said, you could have made the same points you just did while at the same time assuming that everyone's acting in good faith. --Rory096 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right, Rory. Sorry. Yes, I am probably just being paranoid. On the bright side, it did make for a neat addition to WP:List of cabals.

Still, at the very least, I'm right about the bad record-keeping, just wrong on the lack of WP:AGF. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The record keeping on approvals is pretty good last time I looked. But the status page relies on bot operators to update it, which if they go-away, die, just plain forget, whatever, is not always going to happen. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Summary

Trying to summarise the above:

• (1) The Main Page got deleted accidentally after a "joke" discussion on IRC led someone to test the assertion that the Main Page couldn't be deleted. See Wikipedia:ANI#I deleted the Main Page.
• (2) Some other off-wiki discussions led to two users (an admin and a bot operator) to implement a workaround to prevent this in future, based on the recent "5000+ revisions = can't delete" fix. They did this by having a bot do lots of null edits to a subpage (User:East718/empty), and then the admin deleted the Main Page and merged the two histories (see also here), thus bring the edit count up above 5000 (well, in fact it seems they possibly fell short, and two other admins (User:Nakon and User:Graham87) made some manual null edits to bring the total above 5000; one later blocked himself for doing this, see here). The bot in question was BetacommandBot, but the edits are no longer visible because they got removed at some deep level by developers (because the page was over 5000 edits, only developers could do this - see point 5).
• (3) Tim Starling found out about this (see here and here) and blocked BetacommandBot for 1 week for "abuse of system resources", and has called for East718 to be desysopped.
• (4) A technical fix now means that the main pages on all WMF wikis can't be deleted or moved (regardless of how many edits they have). However, this is not a true fix. See here for a process that could be used for emergency deletion.
• (5) The 'junk' revisions have been removed from the Main Page history.
• (6) Several other discussions are ongoing, on mailing lists and on-wiki and (presumably) elsewhere. The wiki-tech mailing list disucssion has been linked, and there is this WP:AN thread. Two others are: Main Page talk page discussion, wiki-en mailing list, and a bugzilla discussion.

I think I have that about right. What needs to be sorted out moving forwards?

• (A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's block and how to handle the work it does.
• (B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points.
• (C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag.

My views are that the block on BetacommandBot should remain, if only to force the community to face up to the consequences of a permanent block or future departure (for whatever reasons), and hence become less reliant on this (and other bots) in case things like this happen again. It is not acceptable to have bots be "unblockable" because they do "vital work". Splitting of bot functions seems well overdue. I'm not too fussed about East718's sysop flag - I don't think he will do anything like this again any time soon. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC, but I concur with Carcharoth's summary of the issues. I would also add as a footnote that, whatever happens, I believe East718's actions were undertaken in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia (and the security of the main page). The elements of concern in my mind are the lack of discussion beforehand, not necessarily on the intent itself. I also believe that that should be taken into account during any further proceedings, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of benefit to the discussion of Task A, in re: Betacommandbot's block, the prefix list for all Requests for Bot Approval regarding Betacommandbot. I'm sure there's a more recent summary somewhere, but this might be a good place to start. The critical task I am aware of is tagging Disputed Fair Use Rationale images, but - given the active backlog on that category, adding more images to the backlog seems to be a low priority at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling made it clear above that he will accept unblocking Betacommandbot. Doing so would be the simplest way to move forward. Rewriting all the bot code would be nice, but ultimately it's probably not worth it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably is the simplest solution, I agree. But whoever does it needs to make clear in the log summary that bots should not be merely unblocked to carry out other tasks. Becoming indispensable through one set of bot tasks is not a free license to carry out other (unapproved) bot tasks. This is a serious concern that has been brought up in the past and never satisfactorily addressed. It is effectively the same thing with editors (eg. Giano is effectively being asked to split his functions as article writer and Wikipedia namespace contributor). Humans can't always be asked to split between role accounts, but bots can and should be. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason I haven't unblocked the bot myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, my actions were a single one time request, that I did not think would cause as much trouble as it did. I did and do not have any plans on repeating the incident. Im am sorry that my good faithed attempt to protect the encyclopedia, caused as much drama as it did. I dont like drama. As for the source for my bots, I am willing to share it with people that I can trust. I wrote RfC bot and gladly handed that code out to a user that I know is responcible. I have also written code for other users and they have abused it, since then I only give it to people I can trust. within the next month or so I also plan on releasing the code for my image renaming script. (I need to finish testing and clean up the code). β^_command 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, do you want to tell Tim this and ask if he will unblock the bot? Or would you prefer the community to review the block of the bot? Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I told tim prior him blocking that that was a single event that I was not planning on repeating. But he was fairly mad at the time. if someone wants to try and talk to tim for me Id be thankful, or if the community wants to review it. β^_command 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all this would be an excellent argument for requiring that all bots on Wikipedia be entirely open-source, and that this be periodically verified by someone attempting to run the bot on a test wiki and making sure it actually works as advertised. Why Wikipedia has not yet agreed on this I'm not sure, except to the extent that it seems never to be able to agree on anything. (Yes, yes, anti-vandal bots' source code will be open, I'm sure that will be a great aid to the huge number of vandals who are also programmers and malicious enough to spend hours analyzing twisty heuristic-based source code. The idea of security through openness is that they'll be outnumbered by the group that's identical but willing to help out by sharing any exploits they find.) Without open-source bots, it seems to me Wikipedia is asking to have major bot contributors get annoyed with the project and leave, or just disappear for any reason, seriously inconveniencing everyone. Actually, this has happened in the past, if I'm not wrong. How is it that The Free Encyclopedia is relying so heavily on non-free software? If not for the bots and scripts that are permitted to be closed, you could come close to saying that the only proprietary software used in creating and serving the encyclopedia is routing software.

But I doubt this is the first time that argument has been made. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more with Simetrical. Moreover, publishing the code, particularly during a BRFA, allows code review by other bot owners, and several improvements : DumZiBoT got significantly improved by Dispenser during its BRFA.

There is some pride in maintaining a bot, and I understand why some bot owners are reluctant to the idea of publishing their sources... However, keeping the source "secret" is not helping at all non-English wikis. From what I know, I have several examples of bots that could have been put in a great use at fr:, but that aren't, because the source is not available, and because English bot owners don't have time to spare for other projects... NicDumZ ~ 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NicDumZ, have you asked these bot operators about this? β^_command 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Positive. 'Want a concrete example ? I was thinking about SineBot : Slakr wants to develop a new tool, completely rewriting a PHP framework, and doesn't want to release SineBot's code until this is done. That's honorable, and I'm far from blaming him for this : Having such a new tool would certainly open a lot of new possibilities. However, this is taking a significant time : SineBot is running here since september... During that time, the only possibility that we, on fr, have to run such a bot, is to rewrite its code, and I personally consider this as a waste of time.

I mean. I am a bot owner, and I code everyday as a living : I don't want to blame any coder for their efforts, I also by myself have a lot of troubles when someone comes, looks at my hard work, and tells me : "This part of your code is useless, delete it", or when some random guy comes and add dubious functionalities to my script. But a strong fact is that several developers working together usually develop better tools than one developer alone, and eventually, I always consider these interventions as useful and helping. Just consider how efficient is the pywikipedia community ! At some extent, that's the way wikipedia works : others sticking their noses in your articles, in your work; but eventually, "your" articles are most of time far better with the help of others... Sharing the code is an immediate way to improve it. NicDumZ ~ 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NicDumZ, Ill see what I can do about sinebot. I think your approach to the operator could use some work. β^_command 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, even if that wasn't why I wrote this. I'm just saying that every coders have reasons not to publish their code (code cleaning, refactoring, new project, new functionalities, not enough time to maintain it/document it, and so on... ). Sometimes I just think that making a little effort to clean our botcodes to release it every week or so on one of our subpages could help *a lot* the community. NicDumZ ~ 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simetrical, your comment about vandals getting a big help from the source to anti-vandal bots is not really true. ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely as I said. I don't believe an open-source anti-vandal bot is any problem at all. You can sometimes make an argument for security through obscurity when heuristics are used, because a lot of correlations can be avoided with some care if the subject knows they're being looked at, but this isn't such a case. The overwhelming majority of vandals aren't going to trawl through source code or even know it exists, and the tiny number who might are too clever and careful to be tricked by a heuristic-based bot anyway. They'd probably spend their time getting through a rogue admin account or something, if they were interested in their vandalism not being immediately reverted.

So I don't see any reason for continuing the practice of permitting closed-source bots to operate. If it were up to me, an iron-clad criterion for bot operation would be publication on the web of the live source files actually being executed by the bot as it runs, and this would be enforced retroactively after a suitable grace period. I don't, unfortunately, have the time or inclination to immerse myself in Wikipedia policy-mongering hell sufficiently to actually get anything resembling this agreed to, but if anyone else does, you certainly have my support. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot Tasks

Somewhere floating around in the back of my mind, I have a recollection that the Bot Approval Group has to approve new tasks on Betacommand Bot. Or maybe I'm mixing that up with something else... can someone confirm/deny that? I think it has bearing on this: if such a requirement exists, and it was ignored, then we have a problem. If not, and I'm confused (which is more and more likely every day) then someone should feel free to strike through this section. ;-) The link I'm concerned with is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, but I may be misinterpreting it. - Philippe | Talk 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

that was related to the mess back early last year. approval for those tasks were rejected and I had to re-file. bots are usualy exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. β^_command 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know they were exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. Thanks for explaining that. Cheers. - Philippe | Talk 16:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such exception. Can you point me to the location of this guideline? Happy‑melon 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not part of the guideline, as far as I'm aware, but neither is every single task completed or to be completed in Wikipedia. It has been allowed in the past at reasonable rates, mostly for statistics and record-keeping, but Betacommand's actions were neither at reasonable rates nor, uh, sane (although in good faith). Gracenotes^T § 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, were you aware that the edits, even though made to a user subpage, were going to be moved by East718 to the page history of Main Page? If so, then I'm afraid your excuse is the flimsiest and most disingenuous one I've ever seen. It is absolutely clear that any bot would need approval for a task to make edits to the main page. I see that WP:BAG are having elections at the moment, but this is something they will need to discuss as a matter of urgency. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this more, and I'm disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning here. Given that the task was run in userspace with the sole purpose of then affecting the main space, I think this reasoning is a cop-out. I believe the task should have been cleared through BAG and anything else is unacceptable. Betacommand knew that this was to be used on mainspace, and found a way to work around BAG restrictions. - Philippe | Talk 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And from a BAG member at that. Soxred93 | talk count bot 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not a BAG member - and neither is Betacommand. Or do I misunderstand? - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has been reinstated as a BAG member since December Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I gotta re-watchlist that page. See what I miss? - Philippe | Talk 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The next step

I believe Carcharoth has laid out the problem here perfectly, but I'm concerned about where we're going now. East and Betacommand have yet to comment on the issue, and until then I believe an ArbCom case with what we have is overkill. I'd prefer to see an RFC on user conduct initiated (preferably using Carcharoth's analysis as an introduction), so both users can share their views and rationales. There is unanimous consensus among the community that their actions were wrong, let's hear their responses and let the community decide what to do next. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lets take a step back for a minute and consider some points. East was quite clearly attempting to help the encyclopedia with what he did, as did Betacommand. I'm sure they didn't expect the drama that arose because of it. Whilst Tim Starling is a key developer, and don't think we need to take his advice without consideration of the facts - let's not start the desysopping talk - there was no malicious intent here, and by stopping the main page getting deleted, they were doing an honourable service for the project (although they went about it the wrong way). All seems sorted now, the revisions are gone - let's just move on, we really don't need this escalating further than it already has. I fail to see how an RfC would accomplish anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I assume (and don't doubt) that Betacommand and East were acting in good faith, that doesn't mean there certainly shouldn't be any action taken. Desysopping could be necessary if it's likely something like this can happen again in the future, even if this happened in good faith. It should be discussed whether the involved users have learned from their mistakes and will be sure to have a consensus before they do controversial things like this in the future, and we should seriously discuss what to do with BetacommandBot, so Wikipedia doesn't rely so much on a single bot to keep things running smoothly. There are certainly things to be done, or at least discussed, even though the users were acting in good faith. --Rory096 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Mtmelendez. I don't have time to initiate an RfC, but if anyone does, please feel free to copy paste my summary above, and add anything else that is needed. Possibly wait until the end of the day for more responses here, and pray that no-one files a presumptuous request for arbitration. Let's see if we can get things done productively, and address issues while minimising drama (Ryan, just letting it all go doesn't address the valid issues and concerns - this is precicely the sort of things that user conduct RfCs are for - pointing out lapses of judgment and getting community opinion on said lapses of judgment - doing this sort of thing without any on-wiki discussion, as far as I can tell, was unacceptable). Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that we let this go per se, many people have weighed in now, and I expect East realises his mistake - I just think it would be wrong to start an RfC over someone who made a good faith (yet extremely misguided) effort to help the encyclopedia. My advice would be for someone to go to Easts talk page, say that he messed up, don't let it happen again but that it is the end of it now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Waiting until East and Betacommand reply here is probably a good idea (but see the note below about East and the notice he has left). For the record, here is what Tim Starling said in that mailing list post:

      "East718 and Betacommand got together, and decided between themselves, apparently without review or approval by any other party, that they would add 1200 junk revisions to the main page. Betacommand edited User:East718/empty the requisite number of times, and then East718 deleted the main page, moved his subpage to Main Page, and then undeleted it to merge the histories."

      Not the best judgment call there by either of those users. As far as I can tell, neither Betacommand or East718 have responded to the messages left for them so far. East was notified as early as 01:32, 4 February 2008. That comment by MZMcBride specifically mentions IRC, and also mentions Nakon (presumably User:Nakon, recently renamed). Was there an IRC discussion and decision to do all this? Also, East718 went silent for two hours after carrying out the deletions, and then made this edit to leave the message: "Something's come up and I won't be editing for a while. Feel free to leave messages." Is it too presumptuous of me to ask what "came up" to prompt that notice? Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for an RFC just to cover a single action; just pointing out a mistake is enough feedback for an isolated incident. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a pattern of bad judgement, or is this an occasional mistake? I don't see evidence of a pattern. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The lack of response worries me. Sometimes there is an attitude that hunkering down for a while is the best way to avoid drama. Sure, things do happen in real life to prompt people to stop editing for a while, but the impression is that sometimes the timing of such interludes is convenient. Until a fuller explanation emerges (and at that point I will be the first to apologise), the impression given is not good. In East's case, probably no pattern. Betacommand's case is more problematic. These were good-faith attempts to protect the encyclopedia, but there needs to be an open admission that they quite simply got this wrong and realise they shouldn't do this in future. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's review the facts. User and Admin collude to do something that they Probably Shouldn't Do. UserBot does garbage edits to a subpage, and Admin moves it to the Main Page, thereby misusing the admin tools. The admin tools were granted on an implicit agreement to not misuse them. Solution: Sternly warn said misuser of tools, and take away UserBot's access since this is the 500th time it's done something that makes the entire community mad at it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who deals with fair use images, even if it is a human, will have people knocking on their door on a constant basis, sometimes in an angry state of mind. This is the first time I noticed the bot do anything very wierd such as this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked User:Graham87 and User:Nakon to comment here, as they made the null edits to the Main Page (still visible in the history). What I want to know is how they were aware of all this and what communications were made to take these actions? I've also asked User:MZMcBride, as he seemed to become aware very early on (he posted to East's talk page at 01:32, and the wiki-tech mailing list post by Gurch was at 01:39). I'll ask Gurch as well how he became aware of all this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  As one of the admins who made a few null edits to the main page, I've been asked to comment here. I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist (and thus Main page) and noticed this edit. I assumed that since the page was deleted earlier, someone was trying to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. I found that the number of edits was lower than the bigdelete threshold and I made a few more to bump up the number. I apologize for any problems I may have caused. Nakon 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that is fairly easy to become aware of – Gurch 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, deletions don't show up in watchlists. Let me be frank. Was there an extended discussion off-wiki (be it mailing lists or IRC) before it was raised on-wiki? If so, why? Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The developers aren't in the habit of hanging around Talk:Main Page or the administrators' noticeboard. However, they do read the mailing list. Since the mass editing was an attempt to use the deletion size limit in a way the developers had presumably not foreseen when they added the limit, I thought they should know about it – Gurch 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  One would think that recent Sandbox deletion would hint at the neccessity to discuss all these "bright" unusual ideas first ∴ AlexSm 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  Gurch has explained in more detail on my talk page. I'm satisfied that the dummy edits are what attracted some people to this - but I'm still unsure how those making the null edits became aware of the deletion and page history merge and the "let's get it above 5000 revisions" plan. I just want to be crystal clear who contributed to these off-wiki discussions before during and after this incident. Ultimately, as Gurch says, it comes back to the judgment of the users in question, but I'm still (like others) worried that people just don't seem to be getting the message. Off-wiki discussions, or those with a limited number of people participating, are inherently risky due to lack of review and lack of transparency. Please, please, please can those using IRC, e-mails or whatever, think next time something like this comes up? Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  You're still trying to put blame on the mode of discussion. Had the handful of users involved discussed this on each other's talk pages before doing it, it still wouldn't have been any better. Conversely, if they had asked for an opinion in the #wikipedia-en channel before doing it, they would have been told not to, by me. And needless to say, if they had asked on the Wikitech-l mailing list, they would have been met with the same threat of desysopping that they have now been met with anyway. Please stop labelling all "off-wiki" discussion as bad and "on-wiki" discussion as good, because that simply isn't the case – Gurch 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The problem is that those who give advice in closed areas don't get shown up for the purveyors of bad advice that they are. In the Hoffman arbitration case, Moreschi commented in an ANI thread that Hoffman was "obviously a sockpuppet" - that bad advice was in the open for all to see. If that had taken place on IRC, Cuerden would have not had the ANI thread to point to and say "look, I got support for my block", but equally, the giver of bad advice would have remained in the dark. Similarly, here, we just don't know who else gave bad advice. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just a small note: please do not call these null edits, this is very confusing to those familiar with already established terms, see m:Help:Dummy edit: null edits are not even recorded in the page history ∴ AlexSm 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Simply incredible that so many people can make so many poor choices in the span of about 12 hours. Tim laid it all out pretty well. I wasn't able to be on IRC while this was going on, thus my post to East's talk page. Beta did a task for East; Beta's really not all too much to blame -- almost any bot user could've done the exact same thing. Alex is correct in the post above this one -- null edits do not add revisions to the database. What Beta made are called trivial or "dummy" edits. Going forward: (1) All bot discussion should go to WP:BON or WP:BOTREQ. This page is inappropriate for bot discussion; (2) I'm of the opinion that ArbCom and RfC are both unnecessary here; I propose that East (and perhaps Maxim and Ryan) stand for a new RfA in a week (when everyone's called down a bit). Meanwhile, I think that he / they should be barred from using any admin tools. Kudos go to Krimpet and Animum who attempted to reduce the possibility of a Main Page deletion without fucking everything up and causing all this drama. Kudos go to all of the admins who didn't unblock BetacommandBot; if there's one thing this community doesn't need, it's another sysadmin who's particularly pissed with us. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I mentioned User:Nakon and User:Betacommand in my post on East's talk page because they were the ones I could see in the Main Page history and they were the ones that I knew for sure are regularly in the admins channel. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think MZMcBride is referring to this by Krimpet. Animum undeleted the Main Page three minutes after Maxim deleted it. Presumably Maxim had noticed his mistake and was trying to undelete it, but Animum got there first. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When referencing Krimpet and Animum, I was referring to their edits to the global CSS files. On a side note, I completely agree with Gurch that it makes no difference whether this conversation between East and Beta occurred on-wiki or off-wiki. Had I been able to get on IRC last night, I would have immediately told them what a stupid and ill-thought-through idea it was to add null edits to the Main Page. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't talk about it on IRC either. Well, they might have done in a private message, but not in any of the channels – Gurch 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one just checked out the history after the Main Page deletion to see if anything happened in the hour or so since its undeletion. I found BCBot's edits and decided to try the final push to 5,000 edits. Graham87 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And that is one of the most ironic things about the whole incident. It seems that even after doing all this, they miscounted or something, and the bot hadn't done enough edits! I mean, really, getting the number of edits right isn't that difficult is it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have skimmed through all of the comments above, but I don't see where this has been addressed. Where was Betacommandbot authorized to do these edits? The bot should have gone through bot review to do any other tasks than what it has already been approved for. If Betacommand is adding new features to his bot without approval, he should stop, now. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the subsection titled "Bot tasks" there is something about how editing user subpages is an exception. Of course, if Betacommand knew that these edits were going to be moved to the page history of the Main Page (as it seems he did), then this whole excuse disintegrates like a mass of soggy tissue paper. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made an extended comment on this situation in a user subpage. — Werdna talk 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What next?

It has been almost 24 hours since the deletion and page history merges by East718 took place. The following is an attempt to refocus the discussion again and see if anything remains to be done before moving on.

• (1) BetacommandBot remains blocked (it is a week-long block that started at some point on 4 February 2008). Betacommand has asked above if anyone will speak to Tim Starling for him, and failing that, would be happy for the community to review the block. At the moment, it seems no-one is willing to unblock, though maybe someone will put forward a good reason for unblocking. One question is whether the block is causing problems - are Betacommandbot's other functions being carried out? See also the questions below that I've posted to the WP:BAG talk page.
• (2) East718's actions - it seems that nothing much more can be done until East718 returns and responds to the concerns raised above and elsewhere. What is the normal procedure in situations like this? Leave a note on their talk page summarising what has been discussed and pointing them to somewhere (back here?) where they can respond to the concerns? How long should should someone be given to respond?
• (3) Bot actions and issues - as was pointed out above, this needs to be discussed at the various bot pages, such as WP:BAG. Betacommand is a member of BAG (the bot approvals group). I've posted the following questions over there: (a) Did this bot action need approval? (b) What are the views of WP:BAG on the block of User:BetacommandBot? (c) How can the issue of too many functions being tied up in one bot be addressed?
• (4) The Bugzilla discussion about Main Page deletion hacks, patches and whatnot. Anyone want to summarise that? Not sure what more can be done with that other than to note the outcome somewhere if it is relevant. Most of the technical stuff seems to have been sorted or is being discussed elsewhere.
• (5) Other issues - auditing of bots (cleaning up existing records) and dealing with BetacommandBot's tasks, if needed. Again, all bot stuff. Can these issues be safely turfed over to WP:BAG and similar venues to deal with?

In summary, I think the remaining admin issues are (and we should really concentrate on these issues and not be distracted by the other ones):

• (I) The block of BetacommandBot (let it run out, or lift it early based on what Betacommand has said?).
• (II) The actions of East718 (were the following acceptable: the decision to do this, the discussion of the actions, the actions themselves, and the response afterwards). We can review the first three. The last one (the response afterwards) is not fully known yet, and will need East718 to make an on-wiki response.

Apologies if anyone feels I'm prolonging this thread. I think stuff is slowly being directed off to the correct venues to be discussed, and hopefully the above will help focus on stuff relevant to this noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hey, everyone. Leave for a day and look what gets stirred up. :O First off, I'd like to apologize for any disruption caused; I hope you all recognize that this was one of those things meant with the best intentions that went completely off the rails. It was a good-faith effort to lock down the main page which was messed with twice just yesterday, once by a compromised account and another time as a joke gone wrong. It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this, but I've always been of a mind to just get things done. In the end, it's been rather harmless as the history is now cleaned up and a permanent solution is in place. I'm not going to put up a fight if anybody wishes me to be sanctioned in some manner, but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while due to unrelated reasons.

BCBot should probably be unblocked, since Betacommand wasn't aware of what I was doing - I made an open-ended request for a bot account in #-admins and he just happened to be the first person to respond. It was my mistake for passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account.

One last bit of housekeeping: it's a very poorly kept secret that I run a bunch of unapproved adminbots that perform repetitive tasks so other admins can worry about more pressing matters. The most important of these is a bot that hunts down and reverts/deletes XRumer (aka /w or index.php) spam in real time, and blocks spam-only accounts and IPs if the spambot is running from a zombie proxy. Around 30 or so spambots are stopped daily with 10% or so being open proxies or compromised computers. Obviously I've taken it down already but can pass it on to any other admin willing to run it, just email me. east.718 at 03:15, February 5, 2008

Hi East. Thanks for the apology and for explaining what happened. Hopefully you will be around for long enough to reply to this, but if not, then I guess it will have to wait until you get back.

• "It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this" - can we have assurances that you won't act unilaterally like this again?
• "I've always been of a mind to just get things done" - in future, will you discuss things like this before doing them? There is boldness and then there is recklessness. No harm done this time, but what about next time?
• "but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while" - the question is whether you will repeat the misjudgments made this time round, so this thread will be useful in determining that - sure, it can wait until you get back, but the attitude that going away for a long time means that the possibility of sanctions (even if it is only a thread like this with lots of criticism of your judgment) should be discounted, is, well, rather strange.

Then there are the three points I raised above:

• (1) discussion of the actions - did you in fact discuss this with anyone? I thought you had discussed it with Betacommand, but it seems now that you didn't.
• (2) the actions themselves - I think it is clear now what you did - can we have assurances that you won't add dummy edits like this in future, or do page merges like this in future, without discussing it first? Especially given that Tim Starling has said he will block anyone who does this?
• (3) the response afterwards - if you do do something unilaterally in future (boldness is sometimes good), can we have reassurances that you will make every attempt to be around in the aftermath? The notice you put up two hours later saying that something had come up is fair enough - but can you tell us what happened in those two hours? Did you see the talk page messages people had left you? Did you get lots of people asking you what had happened, and did you respond to them? Off-wiki response are all very well, but the on-wiki records just shows silence, a notice after two hours, and then this response. If you are not going to be around to deal with the follow-up to something, discuss (on-wiki) with others and maybe let someone deal with it - there was no urgency here.

I'll let others respond to the other points, and I'll respond to the Betacommand bit in the section Ral315 started. I appreciate the image work you do, East, so I hope things do work out. If I'm happy with the above points, I won't be taking things any further, and I would hope no-one else would either. Have a nice wikibreak! Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of tolerance for good faith screwups, for the simple reason that, if they're truly good faith, they're unlikely to be repeated (unless the user in question is demonstrably incorrigible, which East isn't). I say we leave things were they now sit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How difficult is it for East718 (when he gets back) to take the time to answer the above? Ideally, East718 won't be the only one to learn how not to do things. Others watching this will learn what not to do in more general terms - ie. discuss first, really think about the consequences of the actions, and stay around to deal with them. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that I was satisfied with the response, not that further questions to East were inappropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking BetacommandBot?

Given that Tim's willing to let the community handle whether Betacommand should unblock, I'm wondering whether BetacommandBot should be unblocked. Clearly this was a lapse of judgment. And this isn't the first lapse in judgment that Betacommand's made. But I think that, with no permanent harm done, and Betacommand promising not to do this again, there's no reason to make him sit the block out.

This unblock would be with the understanding, of course, that he not run bots like these without prior approval from the BAG. I'm personally willing to do this, so long as it isn't controversial; any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot owners are responsible for the actions of their bots. The edits were a waste of system resources and should not have been made. I hold Tim in very high esteem, and I imagine many other admins do as well. It is pretty rare that a sysadmin steps in to a situation like this and takes action; it's even more rare that revisions are then deleted from the database. Things like that generally indicate quite an error on someone's part. A week is not a very long time, and I hope this block gives people time to appreciate the work that BetacommandBot does for the community and perhaps other bot owners can write similar bots in the event that Beta someday decides to no longer be as active as he is. BetacommandBot can be out of commission for a week -- we'll live. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MZMcBride. Let's see how things pan out for a week. I understand the argument that East718 was also responsible, but before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned. For one thing, I wouldn't be happy to see BetacommandBot unblocked until Betacommand explains the following from East718 (see above): "passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account" Beta, did you really run unvetted code on that account? How much did you know of what East718 was trying to do? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just above, you state (and, I agree), that in this instance, no real harm was done. I find it REALLY hard to believe that Betacommand didn't know at least what the bot did, and, I can reasonably understand why it might have been thought to be a good idea (a good enough idea, to protect the main page from deletion, that Tim tweaked the main page to be not be deletable himself!). They were just trying to protect the project. I'm not sure, what the point of punishing keeping BCBot blocked for a week at this time, exactly is. SQL^{Query me!} 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: "before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned" I normally disagree with this "make them show they know what they have done wrong" approach, but then that approach is too often applied to new editors who can't be expected to know all the site standards. Betacommand should know by now what is and isn't acceptable - what will and won't create drama. Plus the question that East718's response has thrown up (the "unvetted code" bit) - either Betacommand knew what the bot request was for (and thus shares responsibility for thinking it should happen without discussion) or he ran the bot request without really thinking about what it was for - not suitable behaviour for someone who is now back on the bot approvals group and is trusted with helping to approve or deny other bot requests. I would prefer that Betacommand actually steps up to the plate and addresses these issues (and gets his bot unblocked early), rather than him just staying quiet and waiting for the block to expire. I agree that this block is not the right point to talk about splitting up BCBot - but that discussion shouldn't be deferred much longer (BC needs to lay out a clear timetable by when he intends to get this done - and there needs to be checks to prevent over-reliance on single bots, or any bots). Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Until BCB is split up into multiple bots (a completely reasonable request that has been made multiple times in the past) I see no reason it should be unblocked. Opening the source would be good too. Haukur (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While that's a fair point, and one perhaps Betacommand should do, I don't think it's fair to hold a block over Betacommand's head over something as trivial as that. Nevertheless, I see the points made above as well. Ral315 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I strongly oppose holding BCBot's block over his head, to get what you want. If you believe that every bot should be forced to have separate accounts (and, be open source), per task, then, please get consensus and modify the bot policy. SQL^{Query me!} 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BetacommandBot might emphasize some necessary changes to the Bot policy, but BetacommandBot's case must be considered as an independant thing, no matter what. NicDumZ ~ 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested any broad policy changes - I just want Betacommand to split his bot. With any reasonable code design this would be an easy task. Haukur (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was saying, that, if you want bot owners to be required to run separate tasks, under separate accounts, this isn't the time, nor the place. Until then, there really isn't any requirement, for BCBot to do so. SQL^{Query me!} 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of an early unblocking; Betacommand has not been blocked, his bot has. If he cannot run his bot within the agreed limits, it should stay blocked. An early unblocking merely confirms to Betacommand that he can pretty much do what he likes with his bot. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has a long history of problems, especially bugs and unauthorised actions. Do not unblock it. I suggest we ban it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.44 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely do not unblock BetacommandBot. You don't keep giving the car keys to the kid who keeps driving off of Deadman's Curve. This whole latest hullabaloo happened precisely because of a failure to stop and think. Had this issue been calmly deliberated on-wiki, it would have quickly become obvious that it was a hideously stupid idea from the get-go. Instead, it was dashed off as a "hey, let's try this!" idea on IRC, and quickly implemented, to the project's detriment. I think that making BetacommandBot cool its heels for a week (or more) is clearly necessary in order to prevent this sort of slapdash irresponsibility in the future. Nandesuka (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka puts it better then I did. Apropos of very little, this is the 36th block to be issued to BetacommandBot, for various reasons including misuse, continuing to work outside trial periods, general bugginess, and so on. Most of them get undone early because Betacommand always promises he's learnt his lesson and won't screw up again. How many more chances will this bot get? Surely we could find a user or a group of users more suitable, civil, and with the capacity to learn from their mistakes to run bots that cover the tasks BetacommandBot does, split by task and with open code to allow for collaborative improvement. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neıl, you fail to note that 90% of those blocks are groundless and quickly reverted. I also take offense to your attacks against me. Ive personly done over 60,000 contributions to this project, and BCBot has ~800,000 edits. yes there will be mistakes, errors and bugs with that number of edits. In this case I did one act to protect the encyclopedia people completely fail to assume good faith with me. I now know why so many good users are leaving the project in droves, on average we loose an admin ever two days. we seem to want to hang every good user for the slightest mistake. it seems that now users like creating drama, and banning users. it almost seems that the current consensus is to have be banned and sent to hell. β^_command 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As Haukurth says, "90% were groundless" was patently untrue. The fact many were quickly reverted is because you have already been extended a lot of good faith and many admins have been willing to unblock the bot because you promised it would work from now on. But it's clearly not working, as there's at least 16 blocks that are valid (even if they were undone before expiration). "People completely fail to assume good faith with you" - does this mean you don't even understand why what you did was wrong? Neıl ☎ 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

lucasbfr's count below has it that 50% of the blocks are valid. That's still a lot of blocks. A bigger problem is that you react with this same indignant attitude every time you've made a mistake and been criticized for it. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Haukur, Ive admited that I fucked up, I was acting in what I though was the betterment of wikipedia. Im sorry if I get a little irratated when people miss-quote facts and attack me for making good faith efforts to help. it seems that people ignore all the good that I do and they just attack me and call for my head on platter. or that I get banned β^_command 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, from a COOP perspective, I'm a little worried on how reliant elements of wikipedia seems to on the BCbot performing rountine tasks and how little redundancy we have. As a matter of urgency, we need to work towards developing bots that are under the control of the community (by that, I mean the community has access to the code via some mechanism - so that if the owner leaves or falls under a bus we have a fallback position). I agree entirely with Neil's other comments. Is there a working group or other "body" who could take a lead here? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, WP:BAG. But that nearly got shut down by the community at one point. One idea would be to get developers more involved. See User:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion:

"It is my suggestion that the development and systems administration team should play an integral role in the administration of a successful bot system. While the community of the English Wikipedia should be tasked with determining whether the purpose of a bot is sound, it is the general Wikimedia technical community which must evaluate a proposed bot, feature, or other technically-sensitive change for its impact upon performance, and on whether it is better achieved with, for instance, extensions and modifications to MediaWiki." - User:Werdna

This would also help build bridges between the community and developers. I really think this is a great idea, and should be followed up as far as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it's a good idea in theory, but it's bad in practice, simply because the developer squad is already spread thin and overworked. If they were interested, yes, that would be great, but I really doubt that is the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why can't Betacommand spend the week-long block tidying up his code, running it on test wikis, and preparing for this splitting of tasks and opening up of the code that he seems to be on the verge of doing? We can't force him to do this, but we can politely suggest that he do this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be lovely if BC were prepared to do that. I'm pretty sure he has been asked politely to consider this ona number of occasions and refused to do so. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, last time I counted (out of 27 blocks) I counted 11 valid blocks and 10 out of process. I guess that 50% of blocks on the bot are still rubbish. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

16 valid blocks (plus at least 4 valid ones on User:Betacommand for malfunctioning automated scripts, running the bot on the main account, bot-spamming RFCU, automated deletion etc) makes 20. Even with a number of blocks being "out of process", 20 valid blocks suggetss there's something to be resolved. Splitting the bot tasks would be an excellent start. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep blocked until functions are atomized. Folks keep saying that we shouldn't keep it blocked because no permanent harm was done. That's an insane standard that we would never apply to an editor. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate this, but I believe the bot should stay blocked. I've tried to be open minded, but I've seen, over the past year, too many mistakes coming from Betacommand and I simply don't trust his judgment with the Bot, unfortunately. I tried - really tried - to wipe the slate clean after the fiasco of a year ago, and I had almost rebuild my trust in Betacommand and then he went and did this. I'm sorry, in my opinion, the bot should remain blocked for the full duration. I also strongly suggest that the BAG get involved in this and codify whether or not bots should be allowed to run unapproved tasks in userspace. By the way, given that the task was run in userspace with the sole purpose of then having it impact on main-space, I am horribly disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning that "since it's in userspace" it was okay. - Philippe | Talk 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if BCB's edits were not so crucial as they are, his block should remain. I believe that until we can get his tasks split up between trustworthy users, he should remain unblocked, but merely to do work that is extremely difficult and/or tedious by hand. When this is finished, he should be blocked. I barely even edit Wikipedia much anymore, but I still know of the infamous qualities of BCB. I don't mean to slam on its master, Betacommand, because his edits have been very helpful. Unfortunately, I must agree that these crucial tasks must be handed over to someone who will not make such errors in judgement. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 04:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Rich, how do propose the above concerns should be addressed? A warning to Betacommand not to run new bot requests or code without getting them approved first? You do realise that is what he did, right? And that Tim's block was after the bot had ceased its "system resources abuse", and was probably to prevent future abuses of system resources? How can this be prevented in the future? Has Betacommand said clearly what he has learnt from this? If you are going to unblock after a long discussion like the one above, I think you should say a bit more than just:

• Tim's talk page: "BetacommandBot. Hi Tim, just to let you know I'm unblocking this account as the system resource issue is no longer. Rgds" (10:52)
• Unblock log: "System resource issue no longer an isue - bot not doing that" (10:53)
• Betacommand's talk page: "Bot unblocked. Effective now. Verb sap. etc." (10:56)
• In this thread: "Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim." (11:07)

Otherwise it seems that you are ignoring the above concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As the unblocking means that no further admin action is required, it seems that this discussion will have to move to a requests for comments, which I was hoping to avoid. If Betacommand is more responsive to the questions above, then maybe this can be avoided. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the block served no further purpose. BCB isn't going to do "something silly" in the next six days, so we need to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face, here. What BCB did in this case was well intentioned, and could have been done without breaking any "rules" in a dozen different ways. The question of user behaviour can be taken up with Betacommand on his talk page, or RFC if appropriate, of changes to bot processes or standards on the appropriate discussion pages. This particular incident is, it seems to me, only important as part of a pattern of behaviour, which if seen as a problem, should not be addressed by temporary block. Rich Farmbrough, 12:24 6 February 2008 (GMT).

I have raised the bot issues at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Bot issues at WP:AN thread, but there has been no response so far. If you feel this was meant as a temporary block to prevent abuse of system resources, an abuse that is indeed no longer occurring, why not ask Tim that first? My reading of it is that you are wrong, and that the block was aimed to be left in place until Tim or the community (not just you) were satisfied that Betacommand had responded adequately to the concerns raised. Neither East718 nor Betacommand have indictated what they discussed, who they discussed it with, and why they failed to discuss it with anyone. Just saying "I fucked up" is not answering those questions. I will copy my comments above over to Betacommand's talk page. The level of responsiveness is a concern, and is a constant refrain. It shouldn't have to take all this to get Betacommand to respond to concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what, Rich? You unblocked? There are clearly concerns, that is not a consensus action. I'm not sure that's the route I'd have taken. - Philippe | Talk 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the unblock than the poor response by Betacommand so far. He has said he is sorry for causing drama and doesn't intend to repeat this action. No apology for the failure to discuss. TO make it easier for him to respond, I've laid out my concerns at his talk page. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And Betacommand has responded there. As I said here, I'm satisfied now those answers have been given, and am happy for this AN thread to be archived (though others may want to continue). Some issues remain for WP:BAG to discuss, and for East to respond to when he returns. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

source code?

An important issue that is central to this is that of the source code. My understanding is that it is currently closed? I see a number of requests on here for BC to open it to the community (or at the least "approved" members of the community?) Can we get a yea or nay on that request? If it's a nay - that's fine and I have no issue with that but the community needs to know so that we can start developing bots to perform those important but routine tasks and are under the control of the community rather than single editors. This is no slight on the good work that the bot had performed to date but rather a pragmatic way forward and an attempt to insure that the best needs of the community and project are served. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I was about to post above, I do release my code to a very very limited number of trusted users. one I dont like clones of BCBot floating about that I cannot control. the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute). I dont make my code idiot proof. I build it so that I can use it without a lot of hassel. Also I dont have the time to review code changes made by other to my code. As for splitting the bot into several accounts Ive been working on that. I have also been doing other requests (Wikipedia:Image renaming) changing several thousand lines of code spread accross multiple files just takes time. with RW commitments I need 30 hours a day, and as we all know there are only 26 hours in a day. β^_command 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute)". Come on. Editing a page is pretty simple, code-wise, and there are vast quantities of free code available. I have very strong doubts that any code can be any more "powerful" than other code at making edits. And even if your code has some magic that makes it ten times faster than everybody else's, accounts that are not autoconfirmed can make only 8 edits per minute, and other accounts tend to have internet connection latency and speed as a much greater limiting factor than how "powerful" the code is. — Werdna talk 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation to this end at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Code publishing.3F yesterday and the response has been lukewarm at best. My feeling is that bot operators don't want to release code

1) To keep control of it tightly, and have it be "theirs". I.e., no clones.

2) Arguments that the bot codes are "sensitive".

3) Operators not wanting to have to clean up their code.

4) Bot operators not wanting to be responsible for others using their code.

The only way to force release would probably be if the community (not the BAG) ordered that all code be published to get authorized to run new bots. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand all of those feels but the community really needs to achieve a better balance between considering the feelings of the people creating the bots and ensuring that we have sufficient control to ensure Continuity of operations/development if a developer goes under a bus. I think retroactively asking for all code to be released can be a problem but certainly there must be scoop for improving the situation with future approvals? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the crats actually oversee the BOT process, but have delegated the review part to the WP:BAG, so if the crats said as a group "no new bots/bot tasks may run unless the code is released via X means" that would solve this debate IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats only give out the bot flag. They don't say whether automated scripts are permitted to run to begin with. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All of those reasons are standard and patently wrong-headed objections to open source.

1. Possessiveness is not an acceptable excuse for anything on Wikipedia. You can choose to participate or not, but if you choose to, in certain respects you need to forfeit all possessiveness for the good of the project. That already applies to edits' copyright and there's no sound policy reason it should not be applied to bots as well.
2. No bot code is sensitive. Any idiot can already hack up a ten-line Perl script to spam as many edits as he pleases, once he creates an account and figures out how to calculate a valid edit token. And anyone willing to look at the source code of an anti-vandal bot to figure out how to more effectively vandalize would evade the bot somehow in any case, it's not very hard.
3. Nobody says you have to clean up your code, you just have to release it, and provide just enough documentation that others can actually get the thing running. If it's an ungodly mess, that's not great, but people can still run it if you disappear ― at the very least, until someone can write up a replacement.
4. Every bot will still have to be registered and approved, and it's the operator who's responsible for what the bot does, not the author. If someone wants to run a bot whose source code they don't remotely understand, they should probably be denied the right to do so without fairly good reason.

I think that, in retrospect, it was always a bad idea to have the BAG consist of bot operators. It would be better for it to consist of programmers who can understand the issues involved but don't actually run any bots. There's too much conflict of interest right now, and as a result, too much self-indulgence, IMO. Bot authors and operators provide invaluable services to the community, but that doesn't mean they should be given any right to operate against the project's principles or its interest. Better people get by with manual methods all along than rely on a closed-source bot that may suddenly disappear one day. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a bold suggestion: Treat all (bot) source code in a similar way that we treat articles. Let everybody be able to edit the code: Create new tasks, improve any code, debug, etc. Vandalism is dealt with similar to main space vandalism. Unwanted tasks (not compatible with policy) will be deleted. Good-faith-errors will be corrected. Disputes solved by trying to reach consensus. (Utopia or straighforward?) If we require all bot runs to be revertible (similar to ordinary edits – when the developers come up with a robust rollback function), then running a bot is not such a big deal. Oceanh (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

That would be a HUGE security risk, in my opinion. SQL^{Query me!} 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Very bad idea. It would only take a change to one line of OrphanBot's code and it would start replacing unsourced images with penis pictures. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed very bad. A few lines changed in ClueBot could either completely disable it or make it revert *everything*. Furthermore, one character in ClueBot's source could make it negate the heuristics and thus revert only good edits but not bad edits. Also, the huge security risk to the servers that run these bots ... Most of these bots are written in very powerful languages. Languages that are capable of lots of stuff outside of Wikipedia. Languages that could run DDoS code ... Languages that could forkbomb the server running them. You know the limit of 100 ifexist calls per page? A forkbomb could (and indeed would, if coded properly) use billions of more resources than an ifexist call. As the bots' password has to be stored on the server somewhere, readable by the bot, what keeps someone from writing a piece of code to read the password and post it to a Wikipedia page? What about the ability to run any command on the server the bot is running on under the user running the bot (often the same user account that the bot owner uses). We know that bots can go at very high speeds, now what if someone were to compromise 5 or 10 bots? Someone could very easily vandalize a lot of Wikipedia before someone could block the bots. Suppose 10 bots at 10 edits per second (this is possible with forking and such), and it took 1 minute to block all 10 bots, in that short time, the bots would have vandalized 6,000 pages. Now, let's assume that it took a bit longer to block them and it took 5 minutes, the bots would have vandalized 30,000 articles. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I don't think anyone was suggesting that the live code be made publically editable without review. — Werdna talk 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the idea of a trusted repository like OTRS? They maintain copyright permissions and secure user communications. As part of the bot approvals process, each bot task could be issued an OTRS ticket number verifying that a copy of the code has been given. Then, if something like BCB's block or Gurch's travel happened, an OTRS rep could issue the code to a new, vetted bot operator (probably an existing operator) who would at least have that far a head start on coding a replacement (if not being able to implement the bot automatically).

As a followup, some bot ops have released their code and there are somewhat useful (to a programmer) documentations on how to code in specific languages used on wikis. What is to prevent someone from coding their own bot, setting up several sleeper-socks, and doing the same thing you suggest? Using rotating names and proxies, a concentrated attacked, like what happened to GRC.com several years ago is probably just as possible with or without bot code published.

Certainly, somebody could do something like that if they had the time, motivation and resources. But somebody that motivated is not going to be stopped by a lack of available bot code. I mean, there are countless wiki editing modules available on CPAN, and it's not exactly difficult to write one. I think it took me an hour or two. — Werdna talk 07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot.  :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"

so isn't there already a risk of someone switching the heuristics or forkbombing (assuming that part of the code is released) and re-running it on their own system to attack your server or wikipedia? MBisanz ^talk 07:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No more risk than there is of somebody picking up pywikipedia and sending through some mass-changes of replacing images with something offensive. It is my opinion that the place of anti-vandalism bots is to revert unsophisticated vandalism by bored schoolkids — bored schoolkids who are, on the whole, unwilling and/or unable to look up the source code of particular antivandalism bots and to figure out how to get around them. — Werdna talk 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, forkbombing is an attack against the server executing the source code, not against a remote server like Wikipedia. And, no, ClueBot doesn't have any fork bomb code in it. Anyone technically savvy could easily create a bot (or use a heavily modified version of any open source bot) and run it on their own computer. That isn't the reason it is a bad idea. The reason it is a bad idea is that most people aren't going to take the time to do that, but if they could insert a single '!' into User:ClueBot/Source to make it negate its heuristics, that is a different matter entirely. Furthermore, the major bots on Wikipedia are trusted when you see them make an edit. How many times have you checked MiszaBot III's edit to see if it actually just archived stuff without changing anything else? -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked Misza's a grand total of once, when I set up an archiver for another user and screwed up the date coding and had to go and undo Misza's move to correct my error. And I'm not saying code should be editable, but right now someone with the proper knowledge could take User:ClueBot/Source, copy it to a non-protected page, insert the !, and do damage across many sleeper accounts. On the other hand, requiring all code to go to OTRS for storage, would solve the problem of disappearing bot ops, compromised bots (we've had compromised admins), and maybe even eliminate the need for bot ops to feel some duty to publish their code. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what you're saying there. Putting the code in a non-protected page and editing it doesn't magically make it run (try it!). You need a server, you need several accounts, you need decent bandwidth, you need the appropriate software installed on your server. Developing and operating a vandalbot is certainly not a particularly easy task. The easiest part is figuring out how to edit Wikipedia from a script. — Werdna talk 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, they couldn't. They would have to have access to a Linux machine, a PHP CLI interpreter, a working knowledge of PHP, cURL, MySQL, and a ton of other prerequisites. That page is solely for reference, that page has no special status. As a matter of fact, you can edit it now. It won't change a thing, believe me, many have tried. You would have to copy the source into the correct files, create a proper directory structure, MySQL schema, and create a config file for it from reading the source and figuring out which variables need setting. They would then have to create User:TheirBotName/Run and set it equal to true, otherwise the bot wouldn't run. Then they would have to actually start the bot and after the bot did some sanity checks and read some wiki pages, then it would need to connect both to Freenode and to the IRC feed. After it did that, it would attempt to login as the user defined in the config file, then and only then would it start doing what it is supposed to do (with any changes the malicious user decided to make). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec2)No, I get that I can't run a bot by magically entering a script. What I mean is that if Cobi's fear is that a user will edit 1 character of his code, so he puts it on a protected page, {or doesn't I see now), along comes a vandal programer, and now that code is in an area that it can be copied to an editable area (I said page, but compiler, text file, etc would also do), then a vandal could copy it, change the code, compile it, run it on their server, and do all sorts of damage. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the access to the trusted bot's account. User:ClueBot is recognized and trusted not to cause havoc. This saves a lot of time: people don't have to double-check all its edits. In the case of many bots, they even have bot flags, so that not only do people not have to double-check their edits, they can't (at least on RC) unless they go out of their way to show bot edits. Currently nobody does, precisely because the bot flag indicates trustworthiness.

What you are suggesting is, to all intents and purposes, that anyone (who, granted, knows a little programming) be allowed to make any edit they please using the account of any bot. The problem with this should really be very obvious. The entire idea of accounts is to allow recognizability, the ability to associate different edits with each other and use that to draw conclusions that allow you to treat different edits differently. If that weren't important, we would just do away with all account names and IP addresses, and have no way of telling one edit's author from another. It's a bad idea, and no better for being suggested only for bots. Why don't you just have all bots run under one account? It would amount to pretty much the same thing.

This is on top of the fact that arbitrary code execution by untrusted third parties is completely unacceptable in any context. Arbitrary code execution immediately implies trivial DoS capability, intentional or unintentional. This is why you cannot edit the source code of MediaWiki. This is why you cannot edit site JavaScript unless you're an administrator. This is why you cannot run arbitrary SQL queries. Even if you were totally well-meaning, inefficient code or a simple programming error could kill whatever server is running the code. This is why load on the toolserver, where anyone can sign up for an account to run programs, is ridiculously high. Nobody there is malicious (well, except for one guy who apparently ran a Counterstrike server, but that didn't last long). They just aren't being as careful as they should be about optimizing code. And they still bog the server down to a crawl.

So no, really, this isn't a good idea. I promise.  :) If you want to advocate anything more extreme than just requiring the bot to be open-source, you could suggest that it be put in a central repository on a Wikimedia server that a large pool of trusted users can access, and a much smaller pool of trusted users can put live after review. This would be basically like how MediaWiki development is handled, or how most open-source projects are. I'm not advocating that, at least for the present. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the strictest sites about using only freely licensed images and other media. If we are so strict on images that appear on the main page, why, no, how can we not look at the code that a bot runs to make edits to thousands of articles? How can we allow this code to be proprietary, when the rest of the site is free? If featured articles require sources, multiple editors, etc. How can we allow bots to just be approved by a committee and ran? Does the community as a whole get a say in this? I firmly believe that bots on Wikipedia must be open source, that all editors on Wikipedia can view and comment on. Though you may realize that there are a million reasons that this "would never work", everyone here realizes that this has to happen. Something like this fiasco cannot happen again. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This current episode happened because an admin and a bot operator did not communicate with developers and larger community – licensing of the code has little relevance. Bear in mind also that the key role of BAG is not really vetting the code, it's vetting the operators. There are examples of people picking up some code, and wanting to run it without understanding how it works (just browse the rejected bot requests). I don't believe the community on the whole is geeky enough to be trusted with this role, as one must know something about the subject to be able to act as a judge. Turning bot requests over the community would simply turn it into a popularity contest, a bit like RfA. Most of the people who know enough of programming and are interested in bots have already gravitated towards BAG. – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's not really the issue from an organisational point of view, the issue is that we are becoming highly reliant on closed sourced bots and their owners to perform many routine or important tasks. If that editor falls under a bus or goes rogue, then we don't currently have any redundancy in place. Yes - those things can be done manually, yes someone could write a replacement bot - but it's still a waste of time and resources when we can develop processes that minimise disruption from the start by bring bots more tightly under the control of the community. Hell we don't even have to do anything with the sourcecode, just log it somewhere (which does not have to be publically available). If you want to register a bot, you turn over the source code and you agree that in the effect of your incapacity that someone else can manage/develop it. I have a bit of a background in organisational resilience and this stuff seems like a non-brainer to me. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively over on the Bot pages. Two more useful things (than open source per se) would be if each significant task has a number of operators that can perform it, and if rather than being extrinsic, bot functions could be made intrinsic to MediaWiki. Nonetheless this would not stop, nor should it, people using automation in general, without redundancy. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Agreed. Rich, is there a well-organised list of bot functions, the history of who performed them in the past, and who performs them now? If not, shouldn't some effort be made towards carrying out that sort of organisation? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and what is needed is carefully constructed list of important bot functions (i.e. that would be missed). However that's the easy part, the hard part is ensuring that they are all "covered off" by another bot operator - and maintaining the list as operators come and go. Whether BAG would take on this task I don't know, most BAGers seem inordinately busy. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47 6 February 2008 (GMT).

If bots were open-source and acceptably documented, each significant task would automatically have a number of operators who could perform it, i.e., anyone who wants to download the source and get it running. That would be the major point (other than moral freeness issues) in requiring open-source bots. As for adding bot functions to MediaWiki, the main problem is that there's necessarily a much lower barrier to running a bot, than to submitting code to a widely-used application that is relied upon for performance and functionality by not only Wikipedia but thousands of third parties.

There are definitely bot tasks that should be in the software, though. One thing that would obsolete quite a few bots would be a reasonable discussion system (no need for archiving, signing, ...). Another thing that would help a ton is a sufficiently flexible task-management system, which could assist in things like AFD, RFA, etc. by automatically creating pages, maintaining lists of open tasks in a category, tracking time limits, listing ended discussions in an appropriate place, and so on. Improved handling of templates, categories, and interwiki links would kill a whole bunch more bots. If anyone wanted to write new features to help out with that kind of thing, it would be great. Anti-vandalism is probably best to keep in bots, though, because it doesn't really benefit from tighter connection to the software at all and is very fluffy and heuristic-based, so hard to get unambiguously right. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, those things should not be in the software, because they're not set in stone. This is one of the strengths of wikis - that we can get processes working without the software enforcing them. These are social policies set on each wiki, and should never move beyond that. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A built-in discussion system and improved category/template/interwiki handling should definitely be in the software. A task-management extension would also be very nice to have. I think all of these could be made flexible enough to accommodate most needs currently served by bots that handle those tasks, and to the extent they can't, the bots can be retained. Compare to the introduction of categories as an improvement over lists: lists have become much less important, but are still used due to limitations in the category system (e.g., no ability to associate different names to articles, no ability to add comments next to entries, no ability to add custom headings, . . .). That doesn't mean categories aren't an extremely valuable feature, it just means they aren't perfect.

Integrated features have a variety of critical advantages over bots, including speed; reliability; ease of use (using a specialized interface vs. editing wiki pages, the latter possibly requiring arcane templates, etc.); and working out of the box, which is extremely important not only for third parties, but for smaller wikis that don't have large numbers of people willing or able to run bots. (I doubt there are a lot of things done by bots on any but the ten largest wikis.) As I say, in a few cases, like anti-vandal bots, none of these qualities are as important as unlimited adaptability, which bots have and the software usually doesn't. But in many cases, the more limited adaptability of a software feature is easily sufficient.

The task-management extension is perhaps the most arguable of my suggestions. I do think it would be very valuable, and could enormously simplify participation in processes like AFD. There's been some discussion at mw:User:Robchurch/Work queue, but no work has been done on it, at least not by MediaWiki developers. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandal bot

I've read a lot of mistakes in the discussion above, I'd like to try to correct some.

1. A DoS attack using one of the multiple bot frameworks that are available, or one modified bot, is very unlikely to happen. Fork bombs are absolutely off-topic here : That would require several servers running very speedy bots to work, and from my point of vue, there are others types of attacks, way more efficient that could be used to take down the fundation's servers. Modifiying a bot in order to attempt a DoS attack is a waste of time, and that's for sure.
2. The other type of attack that you should worry about would be a simple mass automated edit wave. Not some attempt to take down any server, but simply some characters switching, some page blankings, etc, to alter the content and not the service. And such an attack is VERY EASY to set up actually, without having to modify any particular bot scripts:
   • Pywikipedia only needs : python, an internet connection, and a fresh wikipedia account. Easy.
   • With one of the basic script included in pywikipedia, you can perform automated replacements and customize your edit summary
   • a 10 (Actually, the limit for unconfirmed user is 8) edits per second edit rate can be very, very easily reached with a very slow connection and/or hardware. (And I insist on that : Our bot scripts are using timers around every corner to slow down their processes)
   • Setting up 10 computers to start such an attack at the same time is very easy for an individual.
   • Also some IT students have access to powerful servers that are way more speedy than individual computers: I'm currently sitting at a computer school, which has 4 *huge* servers for its student needs, with a 15Gbps connection : I will not try, but setting up 50 threads to make automated edits from 200 different accounts, using automatically changing edit summaries to make them hard to detect (hum... generated from random google searches ? or, better, from edit summaries from the last XML dump ? ) is EASY STUFF, really.
   • I don't think that there would be any way to easily counter such an attack, and yet I'm not even this experienced on computer attacks. Really, I do think that wikipedia is already vulnerable to such an attack, so please, please, please, stop worrying about a possible attack following the release of the code of an antivandal bot...

Wannabe hackers have more chances to succeed monitoring the latest vulnerabilities, or using a very simple replacement bot.

How many of you, bot owners, 'crats, and admins, are logging in using HTTPS to secure your password ? Really, I think that there are some security issues requiring way more attention that this so-called problem about bot code releases...

NicDumZ ~ 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of your points are true, however, you have lost the context. All of this was in response to someone suggesting that we let the bots' live code be changed by anyone at any time. This opens all sorts of attack venues against the server that the bot's code is running on, including a forkbomb against the server running the bot (while (1) pcntl_fork(); for PHP) or using the bot to download a DoS program to the server running the bot in order for the attacker to add another server to their DDoS botnet. The problem is not releasing the code ... ClueBot's code already is. The problem is letting anyone change the live, running copy of it and having the server running the bot execute the new code. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did someone really proposed this ? :S

I assumed that live code was meaning that a running bot should have its actual source published somewhere, and allow others to change it, but... using a SVN, or this sort of system ?!

NicDumZ ~ 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, above:

“ Here is a bold suggestion: Treat all (bot) source code in a similar way that we treat articles. Let everybody be able to edit the code: Create new tasks, improve any code, debug, etc. Vandalism is dealt with similar to main space vandalism. Unwanted tasks (not compatible with policy) will be deleted. Good-faith-errors will be corrected. Disputes solved by trying to reach consensus. (Utopia or straighforward?) If we require all bot runs to be revertible (similar to ordinary edits – when the developers come up with a robust rollback function), then running a bot is not such a big deal. Oceanh (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC). ” — User:Oceanh, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC/RFAr against BetacommandBot

Betacommand is stubborn and does not want to fix his bot. And you all ignore the problems and let BetacommandBot cause more damage. Everytime BetacommandBot gets blocked, it gets unblocked very fast, whether the block is correct or not. <redacted sentence> Please deal with the problems. File an RFC/RFAr against BetacommandBot. Also, shut it down until it is fixed. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with BCB, you take it to RfC or ArbCom. Don't come here demanding others do it. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, if you want people to take you seriously, start your userpage; That bright red link just looks stupid. (and inviting to vandals). BETA 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solution

Attack the source of the problem:

1. Change the revision limit protocol to only take the size of the article and history into account, not the amount of edits. (if that makes a difference)
2. write in a permanent redirect (or add a normal redirect and protect the article) to a 404-like "article has been deleted, click to go back" page.
3. Progressively delete the original article.

Hope this helps,

BETA 00:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (1), you misunderstand the cause of the problem. A 1 GB article (not that those are permitted on Wikipedia) is no slower or faster to delete than a zero-byte article. Deletion moves a row from the revision table to the archive table; it doesn't touch the external-storage servers, where the text of the relevant revisions is stored. The text of the article remains exactly where it is, it's just now associated with a deleted revision's ID instead of a non-deleted revision's ID. This is why the limit is on revisions per page, and not the size of the revisions.

I don't understand (2) or (3). What are you proposing to redirect to what? What do you mean by "progressively delete"? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the revision limit, as I understood it, was to stop the server from grinding to a halt when a large article and its history are deleted. That's the reason for this suggestion. Progressive deletion was just an idea to alleviate this congestion. delete it piece by piece so it's easier on the system. I must have gotten it wrong somewhere. Oops BETA 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

66.99.53.142

Hello, I'm one of the admins at 66.99.53.142, it's recently been brought to my attention that our IP address has been blocked on numerous occasions for violations to Wikipedia's editing policy. I was pointed this way by the admin Kbdank71, and I thought I'd ask for your help in finding a way to keep our students from vandalizing your site, or at least pointing me to the articles I need to read to get this corrected. His point of “I would think that if your students are old enough to be editing Wikipedia, they are probably passed the point of the "Vandalism is bad" speech having much effect.” is also unfortunately ringing true as well. Any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Yorktech (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yorktech. Technical options at our end included (a) blocking all editing from the IP address, (b) blocking anonymous editing but allowing students who already have accounts at home to edit from school, (c) continuing to revert vandalism and issue short-term blocks. (There is some vandalism but your school is not even in the top thousand vandal sites, probably.) It looks your school forwards XFF headers and the local IPs you edit from are of the format 10.10.X.X. Certain admins with Checkuser permission can tell you which IPs were used, if you can show you are an authorized representative of the school (Release of this info is covered by the privacy policy). Send an email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org with some real-life contact information so that whomever answers the message can verify your authority in this manner. Thatcher 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers can do that? you learn something new every day i guess. (I didn't think the IPs - let alone the XFF IPs - that individual edits were made from were stored). —Random832 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers know nothing! By the way, that's a really bad haircut, Random. Thatcher 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that is what the "thatch" in your username refers to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can subscribe to an RSS or Atom feed of the talk page, which should receive a warning/notice whenever vandalism is caught. Warnings are often, but not always, issued before blocks, and blocks are usually followed with a notice. The contributions page for the IP address will let you see every specific edit made by editors that are not logged in. The IP address can also be blocked because a logged in editor was just using it and got blocked with the relevant option selected, or is already blocked and tries to log in while using the IP. I'm not aware of helpful ways of tracking that back other than trying to log in and reading the message explaining the autoblock reason. It will contain text of the form "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "username". The reason given for username's block is: "reason". That will identify the user and the reason - but you'll have to look at their contributions for more data. GRBerry 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent the e-mail and added the rss feed. As you can tell, since the time of the previous post, someone from this site struck again. I'm beginning to wonder if the only reason we don't vandalize more is the fact that we're generally on blocked status. Thanks for your help in this. Yorktech (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have one school district with an employee User:NERIC-Security (already discussed on WP:ANI and from what I understand has validated his employment) who has taken it upon himself to protect Wikipedia from his students' vandalism. If your school wanted to do similar, making sure as NERIC has to avoid role account status, I imagine Wikipedia's community would only be grateful for the assistance. Now if we could just get larger schools involved... 207.145.133.34 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla Chop! Reichstag in danger

Erm, did anybody happen to notice this? Quite apart from the danger to Berlin, the monster's departure looks a little ominous. Suggestions, anybody? 79.229.81.234 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - what is the point of your message? Neıl ☎ 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was worried about all the legislators. Utgard Loki (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result)

First off, this has the potential to get very heated very quickly, so I ask that folks PLEASE do their best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF of each other.

One of the long-running fights between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review was banned User:WordBomb's contention that the accounts of Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris were controlled by the same person. The two accounts seemed to have common interests, specifically in stock-related articles regarding Naked Short Selling and other articles like Microcap stock fraud. The two accounts have backed each other up in these articles, as well as on related articles for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investopedia [6].

Recently, a checkuser was done (admittedly, requested by an account who has since been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of WordBomb), which came back as Inconclusive for the following reason: One of the accounts involved has only edited via open proxies. This was later confirmed by a second checkuser. The open proxies that which ever user it was (CheckUser did NOT release that information, per privacy concerns), have been confirmed as blocked. However, that leaves us with a sticky situation.

The fact that of two seemingly related accounts, CheckUser is impossible to confirm any relationship due to the use of open proxies fills me with great concern. It means that we have to fall back on an imperfect standard, that of The Duck Test to find a correlation between the two accounts. That means we have to take action based only on actions, editing patterns and common quirks between the two accounts. I find the evidence credible, but this may assuming bad faith that a common person would know that due to the history about these accounts, that using open proxies would be a requirement to avoid showing a link because sooner or later, CheckUser would be asked for on these accounts.

I freely admit that I am admittedly a biased source, having had a run-in with one of the two accounts that was.. rather acrimonious. What I am looking for is folks to weigh in on the following question:

Knowing that no CheckUser check can be done due to one account uses open proxies only, do you find the accusation that the two accounts are similar under WP:DUCK to be credible]]?

I would request a DISCUSSION (not bombast, threats, or the usual suspects agreeing/disagreeing with each other about this.) I also know that WR has posted off-Wiki information supposedly linking the two accounts, to a real-world IP address and person. I am not endorsing this or linking to it, because quite frankly, I found the tactics.. well.. not to my liking. I am going STRICTLY by the On-Wikipedia evidence here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclean hands is a part of US Common law for good reason. It should be a part of wikipedia common practice. He sockpuppeted to counter Wordbomb's odious disruption (if he even sockpuppeted at all)? Cry Me A River. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. If we want to have the so-called moral high ground on our actions, by God, we'd better be acting the way we preach. That means following the rules (No, double voting on AfD's and constantly propping each other in arguments won't fly as an WP:IAR action. I don't care who the messenger is, as long as the message is true.. which it seems to be. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How does allowing odious Wordbomb to harass our good editors grant us the moral highground? This must have been part of the lecture on morality I missed. Perhaps it was between "do not harm other people intentionally" and "don't hold grudges." PouponOnToast (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - could you think of any reason why someone who was defending naked short selling on wikipedia would want to make themselves functionally anonymous? I can! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be understandable.. IF the two accounts didn't act as a team on many arguments and double-!Votes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I edited from open proxies only, would I be a sock puppet of Science Apologist for agreeing with him and voting with him a lot, and having reasonably the same daily editing schedule? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit difficult to use this as an example, because if you've seen the off-wiki information you'd naturally have a different opinion. However, in general, I would not have a problem blocking account per the duck test if they pass the "reasonable person" test - i.e. looking at the contributions, would a reasonable person assume that they are the same editor. Indeed, for certain CU-avoiding long term vandals and POV-pushers, we eventually have little option but to listen for the sound of distant quacking. Black Kite 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the evidence is clear. Near-identical editing patterns; CU-confirmed open proxy abuse; documented evidence such as answering questions intended for the other account; a duck is a duck. Mantanmoreland has been using an alternate account abusively to influence discussion and votes as if he were two users. :/ krimpet✽ 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but responding to a post by one of the WordBomb socks by saying "this has been asked and answered a dozen times" does not a near identical editing pattern make. We intersect barely and I have made it a point to avoid stock market conspiracy related articles because of just the kind of harassment that Samiharris is getting off-wiki. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but this does: Another administrator who had access to an analysis tool useful to compare two accounts ran a comparison of the two accounts, and considered the technical evidence striking: Here's the analysis:

Common edit time: Approximately 3:30 PM on each side (the two accounts differed on median edit time by only 13 minutes)

Number of articles which both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have jointly participated: 45

% of articles that Samiharris has edited that were also were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 27 percent.

% of edits that Samiharris made that were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 60%

The evidence of Quacking is growing in my eyes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is weak evidence like that presented above appropriate? "Another administrator" "an analysis tool?" Could you please provide confirmation of the other adminstrator and the tool used? Since said tool would require no access, perhaps just providing us the output of the tool would be fine. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast, the tool in question was written by me. see some of my recent WP:SSP edits and the {{usercompare}} which is what they are using. Ill run it and post the info in ~3-4 hours when I get back to my main PC. I have given limited access to users to run their own checks when ever they want, but due to server resource issues the tool is not public. but should anyone want access Ill give it to people that I know will not abuse it. I will also run a user compare when asked. I have not looked at the data and make no comments on the actual results. β^_command 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Sandbox β^_command 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who compiled the statistics and provided them to SirFozzie. Anyone could do the exact same thing with a calculator or a spreadsheet. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that fails the duck test. It's evidence of similarity of interests, and in conjunction with other interests would potentially be part of a duck test analysis, but the degree of non-similarity you demonstrate above is something that true sockpuppet accounts are rarely able to maintain over time.

-

I think you've provided Mantanmoreland and Sami with great evidence for the defense. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

-

Uh.. ok, whatever you say, GWH. Whatever you say. For your next trick are you going to Prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing? SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By that I mean, you're awfully flippant about insisting that evidence that several admins find highly compelling of a duck test, means just the opposite. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I got yelled at quite a bit for defending the Piperdown duck test results last week. Piperdown admittedly posts a lot at Wikipedia Review, and admittedly was editing the same articles repeatedly as WordBomb had, an article set overlap that approached 100%.

Had the evidence for Piperdown being a sock been as weak as the evidence that Sami and Mantan are socks, people would have been calling for my and David Gerard's admin bits.

It is not reasonable for it to be OK to use much much less strong article interest overlaps as evidence against non-abusive, longstanding Wikipedia editors but not ok to use 100% similarity against WP critics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had some interaction with User:Samiharris (full disclosure, he GA'd Option (finance) of which I am a principle editor). I found him to be knowledgeable and serious. It's hard for me to reconcile what I know of him with the accusation of crass sock-puppetry. The evidence seems pretty thin. Ronnotel (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited Naked short selling in two months[7], and then it was to revert some blatant POV pushing by a WordBomb sock. [8]. Samiharris has been all over that article before and since, which is precisely why he is being targeted by Judd Bagley. I have never edited Option (finance). Another biggie for Samiharris is Patrick M. Byrne. He is all over that and I haven't edited that in five months. Point of information: Byrne is Bagley's (Wordbomb's) boss. Bagley is director of communications of Overstock.com

Check out the revision history of Patrick M. Byrne in 500-edit mode. [9]. Wordbomb sock after WordBomb sock and me last editing on Sept. 19.

Oh, I forgot: Talk:Naked short selling.[10] My last edit was Dec. 7. Samiharris's last edit before that was Oct. 16 and his first edit after that was.... aw gee, no edits. But there is John Nevard, who is also being targeted by Wikipedia Review so I guess that counts. Zowie! Me and my sock didn't coordinate too well that time. Got to get my spreadsheet out to figure out where that one went wrong.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Am I the only one wondering how hard Bagley is currently laughing at the disruption his sockpuppet caused by logging this checkuser request? The whole thing is caused by a checkuser request logged by a checkuser blocked sockpuppet of WordBomb. Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5. Even if we don't do that, CheckUser came back "unlikely", and although some good people are re-examining the entrails I don't see much evidence that this will change. Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question. In the absence of hard evidence, or indeed of evidence of an actual problem with the edits made by either account, I am strongly inclined to point Bagley in the direction of the colloquial version of Genesis 1:28 and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the juicy irony in User:JzG citing "anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5," when JzG has been caught in the past deleting content that was created by banned users when they weren't banned, then claiming WP:CSD#G5 as his reason for doing so. Whatever a super-admin wants, he gets. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was expecting when I posted this section, that the usual suspects would turn this into the latest "OMGBADSITES" discussion. And as I said on the RfCU talk page.. if something smells bad on Wikipedia, and someone who points out that there's a bad smell, and it turns out there really IS a bad smell, I won't sit there and ignore the bad smell because I don't like the person who told me there was a bad smell. Come on Guy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "bad for Wikipedia" is that confirmed sockpuppets of the Director of Communications of Overstock.com have been repeatedly editing articles related to the CEO of Overstock.com, as can be seen from the edit history of Patrick M. Byrne. That same corporate executive is now using your favorite anti-Wikipedia website to further the campaign on behalf of his employer. That is bad for Wikipedia, and so is your pushing this jihad without bothering to do proper due diligence and check the contribution history of either myself or Samiharris. Instead you just parroted Bagley's allegations here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case; he is an obsessive troll. And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors. It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Please notice: I have not referenced this "possibly fraudulent" evidence, other then to note that it exists. I relied SOLELY on On-Wikipedia evidence, such as the CheckUser report, and a comparison of ON-Wikipedia edits. And as for "sleuthing" editors.. I can understand why it's got a bad reputation after recent events, but, as administrators, in cases where CheckUser cannot establish innocence or guilt (due to one account solely using open proxies, as here.. so no CheckUser could EVER determine either way), it's all we have. Every time we block someone where it's not immediately obvious that the two accounts are the same, we're "sleuthing". Every time we apply the DUCK test, we're Sleuthing. It's not the technique that seems to be at fault, it's apparently the choice of targets. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser report on-wiki confirms that the IPs used for editing by the two accounts are completely different - one via proxies only, one via normal IPs only. Ignoring the proxy editing issue for the moment, my understanding is that it's very hard for sockpuppet editors to avoid slipping and editing from the wrong IP address over the course of weeks, months, or years. If they are in fact the same person, then they're accomplishing a level of methodical avoidance of mistakes that has not been seen in the long-term abuse cases by determined, very talented abusive banned users in the past. As a general rule, lack of such mistakes would form reasonable doubt, given that sockpuppeteers have otherwise proved universally fallable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But this doesn't mean the user has avoided slipping for "weeks, months, or years", it means there have been no such mistakes for 30 days. —Random832 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And let me say this. Many people have targeted me because I have posted in the past (even starting a recall of me) because I posted at WR, and that somehow, I condone or approve of the tactics posted in a thread there by WordBomb that linked these accounts together. Let me state, in no equivocal terms what so ever. I do NOT approve of the tactics used there, and considered it crossing the line into dirty pool and off-line stalking, that I no longer participate in any threads on that site, and I stated so publically on that forum. That is specifically why I only mentioned ON-WP information when I started this thread, except to note that it existed. That is why I haven't made any use of that information in this discussion. I hope this makes it PERFECTLY clear to one and all, ESPECIALLY the people who have emailed me off-Wiki, accusing me of being a WR-mouthpiece and pawn. SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that taint is hard to get rid of. I assume you're operating in good faith, though you obviously were prompted to look at the situation by that external evidence.

All of that said - there is a great disparity of quality of evidence between what we've gotten on-wiki that indicated WordBomb socks and other WR-grouped Wikipedia-abuser accounts here, and the quality of evidence on-wiki which supports Wordbomb claims made on WR.

Applying the same, consistent standards of evidence here - There's a clear similarity of interests between Mantan and Sami, but that's all. More precise edit timing patterns (individual sets of edits, not statistical "probably same time zone" similiarity), mistaken edits one-as-other-account, etc. might help support a WP:DUCK case. And Checkuser might show positive results. But the results so far, on CU, on edit patterns, etc. are in the bin which we normally ascribe to unrelated people with similar interests.

I am aware of the evidence posted on WR. I believe that it's possible that it's accurate, but I also have seen firsthand evidence that the person who posted it there fabricated logs and screenshots. They have also gone to great lengths to misrepresent edit patterns and other on-wiki evidence before, trying to frame people they do not like for sockpuppet abuse. While I understand why they think Sami and Mantan are the same person, I think they're wrong, and I also think it's entirely possible that they convinced themselves of that despite it being wrong, and have fabricated evidence to support the conclusion that they're "sure of".

Limiting ourselves to what is on-wiki here - the case is not made. The edit patterns don't appear similar enough. What the checkusers are off doing now, I do not know. Perhaps they will find something to make the case - I have no inside knowledge one way or the other on the real life identities of the accounts, and I am not a CU and not privy to those discussions.

From the stance of someone who does a lot of duck test investigations - the case is not made here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am curious, GWH, as why you are so keen to shrug off evidence of one account answering questions directed at the other? You note it, you even say "you can see why it might indicate things". But then you go on to say "I don't think they're the same. I don't think there's evidence". Why does such patternistic behavior quack like a duck in one case, but not in another? Achromatic (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG, you yourself operated the "wpinvestigations-l" mailing list which was dedicated to this sort of "sleuthing." It seems a bit hypocritical that you would suddenly discount any connection other than CU evidence just because one of your mailing list friends is involved. Other established editors have been exposed as abusive sockpuppeteers in the past - User:Runcorn, for example. Mantanmoreland is no exception. krimpet✽ 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. I was briefly made list owner, but I left the list after a very short time due to the fact that it was mainly dedicated to a long-running argument between two editors, in which I had absolutely no desire to participate. And as I said, I thought we'd learned the lesson about sleuthing and long-term editors. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is really irresponsible for you to lump me in with socks like Runcorn (whoever he is) based upon the crap that Bagley has put on Wikipedia Review and here. If you had done proper due diligence you could have seen that I have not been editing the same articles as Sami.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We are saying just the opposite, Mantanmoreland.. you only have about 25% of your edits on the same pages as Samiharris, but Samiharris has 60% of his edits on common articles that you have also edited. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And 45 articles that you have jointly edited... Viridae^Talk 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere - that degree of overlap normally indicates people who are independent but have a common interest. I've done similar checks for overlap with people who edit articles in areas I do... in some cases, 15-20% of the articles I edit overlap with some other editors, and 100% of their edits are on the overlapping aticles. In several of those cases they're people I know and have external communications with on the topic, but that doesn't make them sock or meatpuppets - they're just people with a similar interest.

Applying our standards consistently doesn't make the case on Mantan and Sami. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say that since I have 5000-some edits over two years, there are probably a number of editors who have 100% of their edits in articles I have edited.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"but that doesn't make them sock or meatpuppets - they're just people with a similar interest" - and yet we've seen, in this case, as recently as this weak, people blocked as meatpuppets of users for querying what is being asked by several users, from across the spectrum of WP - again, what makes these people meatpuppets, not people with a similar interest in trying to settle an issue, one way or another? Is our perception truly that tinted that we have become follow, to quote the current US President, "You're either with us, or you're against us"? Achromatic (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who truly knows how to roll up her sleeves, dig through the diffs, and come up with completely off-base accusations against dedicated contributors to the encyclopedia. Fozzie, this truly is amazing how it's drawing out all the best Wikipedia has to offer, and apparently offering them about 12 feet of self-threading noose-quality rope. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF isn't just a polite suggestion; it's policy. It happens that SirFozzie notified me of this thread himself, and didn't mind this response. We have two choices: research, or rumor mongering. Neither is perfect. The former has a better batting average. And fwiw, the above account was started yesterday, created this user page in the first of its 7 total edits, and has been blocked for trolling. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitray break 2 by Foz

Hey.. What Durova says above is absolutely the case here. Durova and I have worked together on a couple investigations previously (regarding JB196 way back even before I was an admin), so even if Durova doesn't agree with me.. no... ESPECIALLY if Durova doesn't agree with me, now that I think about it... I value the advice she provides. While we all know the history behind what with happened with Durova (and why "sleuthing" has become such a dirty word on Wikipedia as a result), I know that no-one person is truly infallible in their decisions, and welcome Durova's advice. If I have a question, Durova is the first person I ask to check my work (yes, I can understand that this makes me equally a pariah by both sides :P) What she suggested when we talked is painstaking in the extreme. It gets down to what we could call miniscule things that could possibly link the two accounts. The information that Ioeth provided thanks to the analysis tool he has access to is a good start, but it will take time to inspect roughly 5-6,000 edits (Mantanmoreland) and 1500 or so edits (Samiharris) for common ground. If it was easy, I would have done the blocks myself and just notified AN of what I did. I'd like to thank GWH and a couple others who looked beyond the usual disagreements, and critiqued the EVIDENCE, not the PERSONALITIES. SirFozzie (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A 60% coincidence rate seems high, and 27% even would appear to be unusual... But without actual data describing how uncommon such coincident editing is its difficult to evaluate the meaning we should attach to such results. I'd like to see a more comprehensive evaluation as well, with both statistical analysis and diffs for evidence. In the absence of proof that either or both accounts have acted abusively independently and lacking conclusive checkuser results, the evidence presented so far doesn't seem to meet a threshold necessary for banning a long-time productive contributor. ^Avruchtalk 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to ask why Sami was using open proxies in the first place? Viridae^Talk 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the litigousness of some individuals be a patently obvious explanation? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Point(s) of order. A) The suggestion to bring this to AN/ANI for duck test was made by a CheckUser suggesting that (I can provide a diff if need be), and B) It's not known WHICH account is using the open proxies, just that one account is using nothing but open proxies. Going to take a break from WP, and then try to do some more "sleuthing" later per suggestions of others to provide further evidence of Quacking if there is to be found. SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie I realise that the checkuser didnt confirm which one was using the proxies, but if it was matanmoreland he has either found more (run CU, block open proxies) or he has switched to a non-open proxy connection in which case a CU could be run to clear the air a little more. Since the proxies used are now blocked all indicatiosn would say it is sami. Viridae^Talk 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of that sleuthing could be done on-wiki as opposed to using seekrit "analysis tools" whose very names are so seekrit that they cannot be revealed where everyone can see. You know, to avoid that whole thing that happened to the initial "sleuth," PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast, the reason that the name of the tool is not released is because the tool has no name. see above for other comments, and the tool is not seekrit, its just not widely known about, and widely published about. β^_command 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One of Bagley's accusations is that I have been editing from a particular financial institution that is on Bagley's enemies list. I asked an admin with checkuser some time ago if he could run a checkuser going back that far to put the lie to that con, in case it ever came up. He ran the check and found that a) I was not editing from said financial institution and b) I was not editing through socks. Bagley was basing that accusation on an IP edit to a church article I was editing. The checkuser couldn't go back to the time of the IP edit, but it went back some months. This was long before Bagley started hyperventilating about Samiharris. I think at the time he was pairing me with Amoroso and FairNBalanced.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Except one can easily manipulate a checkuser result if they know when it's going to be run. Not that you necessarily did, but a checkuser you requested means nothing. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But the primary purpose of that checkuser was to go as far back and check my logged-in IP, preferably back to the time of some nonsense Bagley posted on his website. He was accusing me of "accidentally" not logging in. It was not done to find a sock.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, would you mind explaining more fully how you apply the DUCK test? I'm especially curious at how you came to your finding of a 100% overlap between Piperdown and WordBomb. I can't find anything approaching that.

For what it's worth, I find Samiharris and Mantanmoreland indistinguishable in tone, style, temperament, and overall agenda.--G-Dett (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a double standard going on in that people regularly get banned for having similar tone, style, and overall agenda to somebody who is on the "wrong side" of the Powers That Be, but an entirely different standard is applied to similar cases that happen to be on the "right side". *Dan T.* (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sensitive to that. But there's much less evidence here than there was for Piperdown, the last "wrong side" duck-test disagreement of note. Seriously - If people are convinced Sami is Mantan, and believe WP:SOCK violations resulted, then you need to come up with much better edit timing, tag-teaming, etc. evidence. What's been posted and pointed at so far on-wiki is really poor evidence. If the tables were turned and this was a "wrong side" person being accused, and I blocked them, you'd be all over me for stretching the presented evidence beyond reason and unreasonably blocking them, and you know it... the same standard should apply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to understand your Piperdown evidence, but there seemed to be no evidence whatsoever other than generally supporting Overstock—which was not the majority of Piperdown's Wikipedia career, much less than 60%, anyway. Tag teaming, and so forth, was not even possible in that case. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When someone comes up with some really detailed evidence such as was prepared here, then let me know.--MONGO 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall a rule saying that people may be banned for sockpuppetry only if the evidence is at least as strong as in all other cases. -Amarkov moo! 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case I cited...that is the amount of exhaustive evidence it took to ban someone who was abusive, was wikistalking and was harassing. Since the evidence that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are the same editor has been primarily presented off-wiki by someone with both a financial interest at stake, as well as a history of fabrication of evidence, then what I would need to see is on-wiki evidence on some par with what I had to put together.--MONGO 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I am not aware of any on-wiki "evidence" at all for the claim that Piperdown was Wordbomb, beyond the fact that he edited material related to Overstock, naked shorting, etc. and in the process of doing so clashed with Samiharris and Mantanmoreland on sourcing and NPOV issues. There was never any "edit timing, tag-teaming, etc. evidence" presented at all by anyone, period. I thought the ban was unjustified at the time, and pressed several admins for evidence, none of whom could supply anything even remotely compelling. I'm happy to supply diffs from those extraordinary exchanges. Your posts last week when the matter was revisited simply argued that it was unlikely that an editor could take an interest in naked shorting and sundry related matters and find themselves sharing certain opinions with Word Bomb without in fact being Wordbomb. You were very confident on this point. It is possible that as an admin, you are privy to all manner of information in the light of which your conclusions would seem more sound and circumspect. Without access to this (hypothetical) information, I can only say that if your criteria and methodology were applied in the present case, Samiharris and Mantanmoreland would be permabanned without further ado.--G-Dett (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The DUCK evidence is good enough, considering that one account clearly anticipated check user by editing exclusively from an open proxy. These are not separate people, although I note that most of the abusive editing happened months ago. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I realize that they might also have similar conflicts of interest. That would partially explain the similar editing pattern and the open proxy. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently not the first time this has happened

Read this Specifically: "Fred discovered that Mantanmoreland was using a second account and editing a particular article with both accounts. He warned Mantanmoreland to stop, and as far as I know, he has." This certainly makes the accusation more credible, considering this user has a history of this behaviour. Viridae^Talk 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My best recollection is that when I made that comment, I based it on something from Fred's talk page, since I had it watchlisted at the time. Best to find the original source, if you can. And I would appreciate it if you and Piperdown would either quote my entire statement, or simply quote Fred himself from further up in the same discussion. Thatcher 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

original sources: 1 "For example, one claim is that Matamoreland uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS." and

2 "You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [11] is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)" Viridae^Talk 04:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and not quoting the comment in full, because that is the bit of most interest, but it can be read in full in the link. Viridae^Talk 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(R from Virdae's statement) Especially considering the use of open proxies as a way to get around being linked to another account like they had previously. Again, this is all still based firmly in the theoretical.. some deep digging (to avoid that lovely word that seems to make one and all break out in hives) is still necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why "deep digging" is necessary. You and the other Wiki Review contributor have a whopping "45 articles" that I edited that Sami edited (or is it vice versa). Surely you must have some powerful diffs in addition to what Bagley provided in asking for this checkuser? As you know, as a contributor there, if this was Wikipedia Review the "45 articles" stuff would be a subject of horse laughs and much "clique" and "cabal" speculation.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that this conversation has spanned so fast that you missed the point that I publically announced that I disagreed with the tactics that were posted in that thread, and not only that, but I found it so disagreeable that I would no longer post there, and said so publically (and haven't posted since that post). But since the last time we went round and round we were specifically warned to be civil to each other on pain of being blocked, I'll just say that I'm going through the edits at the suggestion of others and we'll go from there, k? SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that regular Wiki review contributors should recuse themselves from this Wiki Review-inspired drama show. Certainly reading comments from an administrator involved in this speaking approvingly about the "wheat" overcoming the "chaff" there is discouraging to anyone who has been hounded on that site.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history of Gary Weiss, you'll notice that it used to be POV-protected by Mantanmoreland who worked hard, in tandem with help from some, at the time, influential admins, to keep any non-flattering info about the subject out of the article, no matter how well sourced. After Mantanmoreland stopped protecting the article, after taking a lot heat about it from me, among others, Samiharris showed up and guarded it just as forcefully as Mantanmoreland used to. In fact, in the recent content debate at that article Samiharris vehemently refused to allow a link to a New York Times article that said some unflattering things about Weiss (likening his behavior to that of a 14-year old), even though linking to reliable sources is the way we do things in BLPs. From my experience with this issue, I believe that Mantanmoreland will now try to attack my credibility. Anyway, I hear ducks quacking. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you predict correctly, because your prejudice on this subject is such that you recused yourself from editing the Weiss article. You were blocked for disruption in Gary Weiss, your RfA failed because of your advocacy for WordBomb/Bagley[12], and in an RfC a member of ArbCom said "aggressively" advocated for WordBomb[13]. The duck you hear quacking is yourself.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have little doubt that Samiharris has a COI with regard to Gary Weiss and/or Bagley. I've never been in another content dispute where a party refuses to cite the New York Times for fear of spreading something like "Bagley memes."

At any rate, since the two accounts don't appear to have been used abusively in a very long time, if we conclude that they're sockpuppets, I propose we just block one of them. It seems that the Mantanmoreland has less apparent COI, so I think it would be prudent to block Samiharris instead. WP:DUCK applies, but there's no need to punish ancient socking sins. Blocks are not punitive. Note: I have a conflict with Samiharris where user demands that I remove WordBomb comments from my talk archive. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that you recently engaged in a protracted content dispute with Samiharris in Patrick M. Byrne, in which you removed any mention to an entire New York Times article about Byrne, a major public figure and CEO of a public company. The article was by the notable financial writer Joseph Nocera, on the bogus grounds that it was an "advocacy" piece and was not "reliable" and was an "opinion" piece. [14]. You then switched to a "Weight" argument and removed any reference to that article. This dispute was resolved amicably, or at least without edit warring, with Samiharris not further contesting the removal. Yes, it is also correct that you did indeed refuse to remove attacking WordBomb's attacking and defamatory comments from your talk page, after it was brought to your attention that this was a confirmed sock of WB. However, I think your remarkable inconsistency on the New York Times columns as much of an indication of your clear bias and POV. You really have some gall criticizing Sami on this and claiming that a position far more reasonable than yours was indicative of a COI.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nocera was speculating about the mental states of unnamed Utah legislators. This has no place in a BLP. I added new sources which actually confirmed negative details about Byrne's crusade, and I tagged another block of synthesis favoring Byrne for deletion. I just follow reliable sources, but feel free to label me a POV warrior. Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article did more than do just that. The article related to a dispute between Byrne and state legislators in Utah, where he is the leading political contributor. You didn't want any reference to that Times article included, and you did not want a reference to a Forbes article on the same subject. My point is, you were waging a vigorous and in my view rather one-sided POV campaign in that article, and in both that article and Gary Weiss you butted heads with Samiharris. You are now doing the same thing in Overstock.com, this time butting heads with John Nevard, who you briefly requested a checkuser on. You really should disclose your involvement as chief protagonist in recent content disputes in articles with Samiharris and other editors.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, consider it done, but I resent your claim about my POV. I'm no POV warrior, as can seen by finding and citing numerous sources against my purported POV. Byrne apologists don't normally reproduce articles about his fisticuffs. I'm glad to see that you're familiar with Samiharris' editing, however. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even familiar with my own editing history, and just had to correct a serious misstatement on the timing of one of my edits in another page motivated by this Bagley-inspired drama. But it is s hard to ignore that an entire section [15]of of the Patrick M. Byrne talk page was devoted to your fisticuffs with Samiharris. You do indeed represent a very distinct point of view in this and other stock market conspiracy related articles. That is not terrible I guess but not disclosing your involvement in heated content disputes with Samiharris in at least two articles, while calling for his head here, is a bit off-putting. I see from that section that your dispute with Samiharris in Byrne ended amicably, and that was something else you neglected to mention. You might also have disclosed that you are right now engaged in an edit war with another user in Overstock.com, in which you referred to a notable financial columnist as an "unreliable source."[16]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think getting the facts wrong is a good indica of unreliability, and it shows precisely how derisive columns can by misused as citations. We were citing a snark as if it were literally true, although it is not. I tend to prefer factual articles, don't you?

And fair enough. I'm not calling for his head. Normally we block both sockpuppets; I am actually calling for moderation because your account hasn't been socking abusively in a long time. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the votes in the MONGO RfA, although I agreed with them, might have been abusive socking. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've only edited those three "stock market conspiracy related articles" as far as I'm aware. If I didn't come away from the Weiss article with such a strong taste of Samiharris' POV-pushing, I would have never edited another one again. Cool Hand Luke 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think it's worth taking a look at Samiharris' "far more reasonable" position at Talk:Gary_Weiss#Proposed section - can we collaborate on something? where 6 editors support including the NYT news story story (User:Jimbo Wales, User:Cool Hand Luke, User:Joshdboz, User:Dtobias, User:Cla68, User:Lawrence Cohen) and only Samiharris opposed—on grounds that it quotes Bagley and might spread Bagley memes. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a position shared by other editors previously, in the several times before that article had been raised and then removed under WP:NPF. I would suggest that your rather extreme position in removing an entire article on Byrne, a public figure, contradicts your pushing in Weiss for reinstating a far more casual reference in a NYT "what's online" column referring to that obscure journalist and Byrne. If you felt the article was relevant to the NPF Weiss, why did you not add it to the CEO Byrne? As for Nocera, if you wish to argue he or any New York Times business columnist is not a reliable source because they express opinions you don't like, good luck with that. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that both Weiss and Bagley seem like children fighting over a rather stupid IRL conflict aside, if a reliable source like the New York Times reports on something, even if it might be seen as "supporting" what some are calling Wikipedia's Public Enemy #1, what right under WP:NPOV do we have to scrub something that may be in support of Bagley? NPOV transcends you, me, Weiss, and Bagley. If something is a good source, it's a good source, period. Anyone who tries to politicize article content for any agenda needs a kick in the ass out the wikidoor. Lawrence § t/e 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I suggest that you go back in the article talk page history and see who supported removing that reference, before you suggest that all such miscreants be booted out the Wicki-door.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of sources need to be added. Contra your characterizations, I've not spent a lot of time in this area, and I have no agenda whatsoever. I haven't even been able to fact check all of the existing content. If a citation is only being used to support an incorrect inference, as in this version of Overstock.com's lead, it should be removed. We should attribute notable opinion like Nocera's, but we should not allow erroneous inferences to be "sourced" by columnist snarks. Nor should we suppress a notable printed publication just because we're afraid it isn't sufficiently anti-Bagley. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Should it be decided that this is a case of socking it should be kept in mind that this user has done this before... That really needs to be taken into account, it is hard to AGF about behaviour like that twice. Viridae^Talk 07:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

WP:NPF? If we cannot include criticism of someone, we cannot have an article about them. There is absolutely no room on Wikipedia for an article about someone that we feel restrained (whether because they're a non-public-figure or for any other reason) from including notable criticism of. This is not up for negotiation. —Random832 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, I trust, a reference to the Joseph Nocera article that was excluded from Patrick M. Byrne by Cool Hand Luke? The entire column in the New York Times devoted that non-NPF?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not, and I am forced to conclude by your suggestion that it is that you are a smart-ass, since it was absolutely clear what I was referring to. Perhaps what you're talking about should also have been included in that article, but if you're suggesting that the exclusion of one was somehow a response to the exclusion of the other - well, that's textbook WP:POINT. Regardless, there is plenty of negative material in Patrick M. Byrne and none at all in Gary Weiss - if the latter is because we somehow "shouldn't" include such material (even when it exists in reliable sources) in an article about a non-public figure, I would say that due to Foundation Issue #1 (NPOV), we therefore also "shouldn't" have an article at all about such a non-public figure. —Random832 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a serious question, as there was a lengthy back-and-forth about Cool Hand Luke's removal of any reference to a lengthy article in The New York Times about Patrick Byrne, which was the polar opposite of the position he took in Gary Weiss concerning a far briefer and less weighty reference. As to why the two articles are different in terms of negative material, gee I don't know. Could it be that the massive reliable sourcing on one is largely negative while the far slimmer reliable sources on the other are not? If you can find some reference, for example, to an SEC investigation of Weiss that was accidentally ommitted from his article, please add that back in.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You may well have a serious question about your dispute in the Byrne article, but I find it very difficult to believe that you seriously thought that I was referring to that, since "WP:NPF", which I opened my statement with, was never brought up in reference to that.

And the WP:POINT I was referring to, and in which you are persisting, is in changing the topic to another different time a Times reference was removed from an article which, even without it, has no great lack of critical material about the subject, as though to justify keeping another Times reference out of a different article. Two wrongs don't make a right.—Random832 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the issue

I believe that not going to the heart of this issue and opening it up for full discussion will only cause unnecessary delay, because the issue will keep coming up. The crux is, speaking of duck is a duck, that why don't we discuss who Mantanmoreland/Samiharris really is? We are allowed to do so because of the obvious COI issues involved.

I read somewhere that before Essjay was "outed", the fact that he was a phony was one of the biggest open secrets in Wikipedia. That it was obvious that this young guy who showed up at meetups wasn't who he said he was was known to a great many project participants. But, Wikipedians chose to ignore it or look the other way because it was obvious that Jimbo and other influential Wikipedians liked Essjay.

We have a similar situation here. The identity of the person behind Mantanmoreland/Samiharris is an open secret in Wikipedia. We don't even need Bagley's evidence to conclude that. We can look at those account's edit histories. They have the same interests in the same subjects. They've been caught socking before. They're fanatic about protecting the Gary Weiss article. Then we can look at Weiss' blog. It's obvious that Weiss is greatly interested in the same topics that those accounts are interested in. He stated in The Register article that he has never edited Wikipedia. But, his blog posts show that he has detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia works [17]. He has also discussed Bagley's/WordBomb's involvement with Wikipedia [18], but has never mentioned Mantanmoreland's editing of the same subjects and his protection of the Weiss bio [19].

In past discussions, Jimbo has made it clear that he is aware of the situation. For example, he oversighted admin deleted the AfD I initiated on the Weiss article almost a year ago. He told admins to "shoot on sight" on the Weiss discussion page after I tried to start an RfC on the article's content. The fact that Jimbo has called for people on one side of the issue, like me, to be blocked but not on the other side in spite of the serious black eye that this episode has given the project, sends a clear message. Just like with Essjay, people are nervous about taking decisive action because they're unsure whether they'll be supported by the project's leadership or not.

Well, if no direct action is taken, this issue will continue to fester and continue to demand we spend hours spinning our wheels trying to deal with it. One side of the issue, Bagley, has been banned. The other side, and we know who that is, continues to operate here in bad faith. Until the remaining antagonist is dealt with appropriately, the problem continues. Is anyone willing to step up, risk taking some heat, and resolve the matter for once and for all? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on some stuff that's available if you look hard enough, but it's not polished enough yet for a formal report yet. Please give me a bit of time on this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that evidence of COI and sockpuppetry were oversighted? Lawrence § t/e 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for SirFozzie's full response before I comment further. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not oversighted, I think, just deleted. I'm not sure what evidence is there. Accusations, at least, and a full-throated defense. Some users claiming that the article looks promotional. Dunno. Admins see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to take back that I said that it was oversighted, it wasn't, just admin deleted. It has been pointed out to me that in that AfD, Fred Bauder, a sitting arbitrator at the time and the one who caught Mantanmoreland socking previously, said this in that AfD:

• "Notable, although there is strong evidence that either Gary Weiss, or a devoted disciple, has been editing the page." and
• "Gary Weiss may have created the article and edited it, but he is notable, as is his work."

Mantanmoreland started the article [20]. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for holding off on commenting. I've been able to put together a preliminary report (there is a couple small pieces I want to run by Foundation folks before I put in the completed report). Please note, that while myself and others have put a lot of work into this over the last couple of days, there may be more forthcoming, and I welcome many eyes and many hands to improve this report. User:SirFozzie/Investigation is a preliminary report and my conclusion is there is a lot of evidence that indeed that these two accounts should be considered a match per WP:DUCK. SirFozzie (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is accepted that the rule against "outing" means that one may not speculate that someone who is editing an article about a person is or is related to the subject of that article, WP:COI is absolutely null and void. I will therefore be nominating WP:COI for deletion tomorrow unless this notion is rejected. —Random832 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - I do not believe that User:Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. I do not have an opinion about that. What is clear to me is this: If he is, people should be allowed to say so, and whether he is or not, it does no legitimate harm for anyone to say they think he is. —Random832 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit History Analysis

I did an edit history overview comparing these two accounts all the way back to September. I was actually looking for overlapping edits to try to disprove these allegations. I found something very interesting. These two accounts are practically night and day. Whenever there was a gap in the history of one user, the other user went into action. Also, there were scarcely any edits from either user that were within 30 minutes of each other. Based on this edit history, I find it very difficult to believe that they are not the same user.

I will say that this technique does not work for all situations. The large volume of edits from both of these users makes this technique helpful in this specific case.

This doesn't mean that these accounts are sockpuppets, or against policy. But, This edit concerned me, as this may be creating false consensus.

Hope This Helps. BETA 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the accounts are like "night and day," and therefore there is no reinforcing of positions etc., how can you say they are related? What would be the point of that? If Sami (or one of the several other socks WordBomb has accused me of) really was/were sock/socks, I'd have dusted them off for Cla68's RfC [21], which took place after Sami had already been around for some time.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's based on the fact (as seen on User:SirFozzie/Investigation this investigation, and supported by Durova's comment above that you declined oddly to reply in public to) that you and Samiharris appear to be "textbook" sockpuppeteering as Wikipedia defines it. As the evidence is mounting now as seen above that you are a known abuser of multiple accounts as confirmed by Arbiters and Checkusers, and with the detailed evidence that you may have a conflict of interest as the BLP subject in question of this entire mess, you may wish to present detailed evidence indicating why you are not what everyone appears to be now accepting as fact (barring a handful of "Anti-Bagley" types). Please do so. You're a good contributor, Weiss or not, and I'd hate to see you get booted. Lawrence § t/e 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it, as I think the whole thing is bogus and ridiculous. I did respond to some of Durova's points this morning by email(s). I'm sure there must be many thousands of editors who don't edit at the same time I do, and who start editing at about the same time of the day, or don't edit at the same time of day. This is, I think, a one-sided presentation that ignores obvious stuff such as that, and the fact that the two accounts were not in fact behaving like socks (because they weren't). If this was a "textbook" sock, Sami would have weighed in on Cla68, for instance, as he was not in the Bagley gunsights at the time. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many legitimate reasons why an editor would choose to have two accounts, see WP:Sock.

My reference to night and day does not refer to the quality the edits coming from these two accounts, merely that these accounts complement each other in their timing, like two connected jigsaw pieces, with no overlap, ever. Which suggests to me that they are of the same user.

My belief is that you have come very close to the line between legitimate and sockpuppet, even in situations where it wasn't necessary. One comment on rule 203 would have been adequate to negate consensus. If you both happened to comment on a closed vote, such as an AfD, you could be in trouble.

BETA 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand you meant day and night in the timings, and that is my point. Why would one have an (illegitimate) sock and not use it for that purpose when a major battle is underway? There was a huge battle royale in Gary Weiss some weeks ago in which SHarris was alone against the world, and I stayed out of it. Sami was in a position to comment on Cla68's RfC, but did not do so or even endorse any comments.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved outside party, it sort of seems like you're searching really hard for situation where both users were not involved. Sort of like "See? We didn't stick up for each other here, so we're two different people." I'm not necessarily saying that both users are the same person, but this is just an observation & how it seems to onlookers... нмŵוτнτ 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Consequences

Alright, there seems to be enough evidence to support that these accounts are from the same person. I don't think that he/she deserves to be exiled though. And I believe that SirFozzie should take a chill pill. This has gotten very out of hand.

• I say you (administrators) Slap him on the wrist (72 hours) for the AfD, make him choose an account, and send him on his way. BETA 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • What exactly will that prevent? PouponOnToast (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I say, indefinitely block the account that was using open proxies, and offer a second chance if the proxy editing is explained and/or promised not to happen again. I agree that slap on the wrist blocks aren't really in line with out blocking policy, and even if there are socks in use, there isn't really a strong case of abusive socks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Editing from open proxies is not prohibited. In fact, it is expressly allowed - "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." PouponOnToast (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was cognizant of that policy when I commenced using an open proxy. I did so after I began reading of Mr. Bagley's use of spyware, some on Wikipedia, which has received widespread attention. He indeed boasted of using spyware recently off wiki. I have not violated policy, and neither have I been socking with Mantanmoreland or anyone. I indicated some months ago in an email to several people that if I were to be harassed I would immediately retire, and that is what I am doing. I am not saying that this proceeding is harassment, but it derives from off-wiki harassment. Sorry, but editing Wikipedia is simply not that important a part of my life.--Samiharris (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It will prevent someone who has made many good faith edits from being removed entirely. It will also give him/her an opportunity to think about his/her actions. Sometimes people don't know that their actions are wrong until there are consequences, and I think we should give him/her an opportunity to continue to be constructive. BETA 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection

For the record, I find it regrettable that User:Samiharris is being harassed off WP and I'd like to see him stick around. I am nowhere near convinced that the evidence presented above supports a case for sock-puppetry. And I fail to understand why this case is being 'tried' in this venue rather than at WP:SSP. Ronnotel (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel renders the essential point. This isn't about WP:DUCK at all; it's about WP:SPADE. If any editor or group of editors wants to start proceedings against any suspected sockpuppeteers, there's an appropriate forum where that issue should be properly documented and discussed. Accusing editors outside of that process is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:IMHO. Using this forum as a way of generating discussion about the validity of using open proxies is all beside the point, and it tends to color consensus before the evidence is fully presented. I see no reason to abandon good faith here. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing with BusterD, I have read through this discussion and have two comments. First, someone early on concludes that we have a case of sockpuppetry here in part because of "Near-identical editing patterns ... documented evidence such as answering questions intended for the other account" ... if this is enough evidence, one would conclude I have maybe half a dozen sock puppets here. Do I have to add that I do not? In my experience, Wikipedia attracts two kinds of editors: some who make a tremendous number of small (but valuable e.g. providing sources, copy-editing, filling in basic information like dates for biographies, etc.) edits to a wide variety of articles, and people who focus on a small number of articles on topics on which they have considerable expertise or are willing to do serious research. Sometimes editors of the second group get into major revert wars with people they consider POV warriors (people who, no doubt, consider themselves to have considerable expertise, and who think it is the other person who is the POV warrior). This is likely to happen whenever you have people working on a topic they care about. But, perhaps strangely but I think understandably, the opposite also happens: editors of the second group discover editors with whom they consistently agree; they make similar edits, support what one another adds or deletes, vote the same on polls ... This is predictable because people who know a lot about the same topic are likely to agree with one another a lot. I think I fall into the second category and both situations have happened to me. I have been involved in some nasty edit wars, but for several of the articles I care passionately about, there are at least several other editors who consistently think just like I do. Are they sock-puppets of me, or some kind of doppelganger? No, we have just read the same books and articles, and have the same understandings of Wikipedia's core policies. And I would be shocked if the same were not true for Mantanmoreland or for Sammi Harris. Think of how many people edit Wikipedia. The chances of two people sharing the same views with virtually identical knowledge of a particular subject happens all the time here. I think you'd need a lot more evidence to support sock-puppetry. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Second point. I do not think that "clean hands" applies as such here, in that I do not think that Bagley's malicious campaign against Wikipedia and some of its finest editors justifies or excuses sock-puppetry. But I think this is missing the point. the real wuestion is, why would anyone have to create a sock-puppet to deal with Bagley? Wouldn't there be enough people who care about Wikipedia and its policies, and the community of editors of good faith, that enough people would have the same response to Bagley or people defending or promoting him? I hope so! There is a good faith/bad faith issue but it isn't what people who suggest clean hands think. It is not that Bagley's bad faith converts sock-puppetry into a good-faith act. It is rather this: to suggest that someone would have any reason to use a sock-puppet to defend Wikipedia against Bagley is to accuse all other Wikipedians of bad faith - the bad faith of encouraging Bagley either actively or passively. I do not think that most Wikipedians have this kind of bad faith. I think most Wikipedians have good faith. That is why I think that it is obvious that several dedicated editors will take the same stance against Bagley and concerning policies or articles relating to Bagley. Given this fct, it is absurd to think anyone would have to create a sock-puppet ... te only one in this scenario who has any interest in creating sock-puppets is bagley himself. Uh, but we knew that already, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's been proven that Mantanmoreland has used sockpuppet accounts in what would be considered a rules-breaking way in the past. SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to use the correct process. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please make a detailed report in the proper forum and let the process decide what is to be done. If you don't feel you have sufficient evidence, the start a subpage somewhere and accumulate the data you need. If you need assistance gathering required diffs, I'm sure others aroused by this brisk discussion would offer to help. This forum is not a halfway measure; it is the wrong place to tag someone as a sockpuppet. Please take your assessment to the proper forum. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the note right down below here about the suggestion that it be taken to the proper place, the proper place being AN/ANI. Trust me, I can policy wonk with the best (or is that the worst?) of them, but to suggest that I am deliberately ignoring the proper process is a wee bit disingenuous. As for proof of the previous sockpuppet accounts, you can read the following section from earlier in the discussion. [22] .. and the following line. Fred(Then Arbitration Committee member User:Fred Bauder discovered that Mantanmoreland was using a second account and editing a particular article with both accounts. He warned Mantanmoreland to stop, and as far as I know, he has."

As for the other account, see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=43586904 edit where he "expands on a previous comment" that he made.. although the account who made the comment was NOT Mantanmoreland. I stand by my evidence, my investigation and my conclusions, and the location involved. SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Second point. This case is here, because the CheckUser who did the test suggested that the case be forwarded to AN/ANI for a Duck Test [23] SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, when you opened this discussion just two days ago, you wrote, "First off, this has the potential to get very heated very quickly, so I ask that folks PLEASE do their best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF of each other .... What I am looking for is folks to weigh in on the following question: Knowing that no CheckUser check can be done due to one account uses open proxies only, do you find the accusation that the two accounts are similar under WP:DUCK to be credible]]? I would request a DISCUSSION (not bombast, threats, or the usual suspects agreeing/disagreeing with each other about this.) I also know that WR has posted off-Wiki information supposedly linking the two accounts, to a real-world IP address and person. I am not endorsing this or linking to it, because quite frankly, I found the tactics.. well.. not to my liking. I am going STRICTLY by the On-Wikipedia evidence here."

Wise words, and nicely said. But it seems to me that in most of your comments isnce then you have ceased to assume good faith and ceased to encourage an open discussion, as you consistently dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. There is no GF discussion unless people first, as you say, assume good faith - which to me means starting off assuming Mantanmorelad and Sammi Harris are not sock puppets, and second, being willing to have one's mind changed. I tell you, my mind can be changed but only I think if there were more solid evidence than has been presented here. Okay, despite your lofty words at the opening, it sounds like you started this off convinced MM and SH are sock-puppets. I have to ask you: what would convince you, at this stage, that you are wrong? If nothing will convince you I have to ask why you invited discussion. What is the point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I opened this discussion because while it looked suspicious, I wanted more opinions then just my own opinion (again, I'm admittedly biased, considering past history between Mantanmoreland and myself). So I took the suggestion of Thatcher (the original CheckUser in the case involved). So I post some quick looks, and while many folks on both sides focused on the personalities, others looked at it and found it susp

People requested more evidence, I went through on-WP Evidence to buttress my points. I've asked Mantanmoreland for more info to disprove what I've generated, as did others, publicly. Mantanmoreland has refused to respond, except to say that my evidence shows nothing, despite many others finding it credible.

WP:AGF says that you have to assume good faith, but that does not mean you have to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. As I've done my investigation (see the Investigation page I created, with the help of many others who believe as I do), I've seen a lot of information that confirms what I saw at first glance.

Let's say this is about any other user. Let's dump out the personalities involved. We have an account who previously, has been caught using at least two alternate accounts previously (confirmed by an Arbitrator, presumably by CheckUser) in ways that violate Wikipedia's core policies (Editing the same articles, always agreeing with each other, building consensus, etcetera).

Now, we have this new account, that is widely believed to be related by many. As the first account starts to lower their edit-rate, the second account picks up the slack, in some articles picking up right where the first account left off.

There's an easy way to prove/disprove this. But in this case, we finally go there, and we find out that it is impossible to ever conclusively confirm or deny that link because one account (now proven to be Samiharris, if I read the prior part of the discussion correctly) edits specifically and ONLY by open proxies. Wouldn't that strike you as suspicious, especially as 60% of that 1500 or so edits are on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited?

Trust me, I would LOVE to find something to conclusively prove or disprove my theories. I really do. Contrary to what folks may think, I'm not arguing here for the sake of argument. If it's disproved? Fine. We move on, I take the hit, and we go from there. If it's proven? Fine. We have to decide what kind of restrictions there should be for an editor who would have been caught socking abusively for the third time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say to the statistics you've generated as I think your statistics don't show much of anything. I have other evidence that I've sent off by private email, only not to you.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, with regards to the assumption of good faith, I think we need to bear in mind not only Mantan's prior socking, but also his reactions to polite queries about it. Last May I became aware of this edit by Mantan – in which, with an edit summary that reads "revising previous response," Mantan extensively rewrites a substantial two-paragraph talk-page post by User:Tomstoner. I asked Mantan about it very politely. He accused me of trolling and deleted my question, then quickly changed his mind and restored it, adding an "I don't recall" response along with what seemed to me a very odd comparison. Mantan then deleted my polite follow-up question as "trolling." At a complete loss, I then left what I hoped was a conciliatory and reassuring note, explaining that I didn't intend to report him but wanted to understand what was going on. He then accused me of harassment and asserted flat-out that "Tomstoner is not me." This part of the exchange, along with diffs showing Mantan and Tomstoner edit-warring together, can be read in full here. I am fairly certain Tomstoner was the abusive sock referred to by Fred Bauder, now widely acknowledged to have indeed been operated by Mantan. If this is right, then Mantan's response at the time – flat denial, along with accusations of harassment and trolling – is certainly relevant to our present discussion.--G-Dett (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May I just ask that we assemble the relevant public diffs in the page SirFozzie set aside in his user space? Whichever way the evidence leads, maybe a dry and rational analysis will yield consensus. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris

A couple of points. First: I have a lot of emails from both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland (in the hundreds in both cases), I would say that in my opinion they are different individuals. There are sufficient, and sufficiently consistent, differences in phrasing and tone that I don't believe they are one and the same, but of course I am not an expert in textual analysis. Second: I believe that Samiharris has "left the building" so blocking that account would not cause a problem, but also not yield any measurable benefit. I only know one other editor who sent such long and detailed emails and who always uses proxies, but I am sure Samiharris is not ArmedBlowfsh because the styles are different. Whether Samiharris is Gary Weiss is anyone's guess and not actually that relevant. Although I would be very angry and disappointed if Mantanmoreland were to be credibly identified as Weiss, I d not believe that Mantan and Sami are the same individual. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that you would be surprised if they are the same editor, but it's "anyone's guess" if Samiharris is Weiss? You say it's irrelevant—haven't we warned users for speculating that these accounts are connected to Weiss? Should we just declare that WP:COI is a dead letter unless you're stupid enough to have revealed your identity? I think that sends the wrong message, Guy. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

When someone who has an off-wiki agenda brings that agenda here, and it thus becomes apparent than a certain pseudonymous editor is that individual, then it's a problem. But the only person who's making a fuss about Sami or Mantan's edits is Judd Bagley, and he has a massive problem with any content that does not say that naked shorting is evil, those who do it are the Antichrist, and most especially with any content that suggests Overstock's problems are due to consistent trading losses and piss-poor management, rather than some huge conspiracy. Frankly, I think Bagley's "evidence" and any other assertions he makes should be taken with a truckload of salt, or better still simply ignored. COI is enforceable without identifying a person, by looking tat their edits and seeing that they are promoting an agenda. It's also a useful guideline for the many individuals who reveal their identity in good faith - people who want to correct or reference an article on themselves, for example. As I say, I would be acutely disappointed and very angry if Mantan turned out to be Weiss, but I do not believe Mantan is Sami and I don't care if Sami is Weiss (I never thought to ask him). Remember, as far as Bagley is concerned, running up against Overstock is the single most important thing in Gary Weiss's life. I see no evidence that Weiss agrees, and he is an acknowledged expert on a number of subjects, including naked shorting. Being an expert does not necessarily give you a conflict of interest. THF's problem was advocating his own opinion pieces as a source. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read WP:BLP before advancing that theory, wholeheartedly apologize. BETA 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion SubPage set up

I've set up a subpage off the investigation at User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox If folks want to provide further evidence (pro or con), or want to further discuss this (Pro/Con/Neutral).. other then some very basic rules, I won't edit any posts (or indeed reply to them without being asked to) there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What if (as I am inclined to believe) that all this is incorrect?...in which case, we have now driven off an editor due to what is likely little more than suspicions. They didn't edit at the exact same time...so? They have similar interests...so? Mantanmoreland (maybe) used a sock account in the past (1.5 years ago)...and so that means he MUST still? Hasn't this ongoing crusade been a WR staple for what, six months at least? I dunno...I am willing to believe it's possible, but you'll have to do a better job convincing me. If you're so certain, then file an Rfc.--MONGO 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I'm not one to use the block function very often, so I would like a review. I've blocked Benv-b92 (talk · contribs) for 12 hours for repeatedly inserting text copied straight from radiotimes.com. Right call? — Edokter • Talk • 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLOCK, a user/IP may be banned for "persistently violating copyrights". I'm fairly sure this qualifies. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it seemed that he wasn't violating copyright. However, User:Daniel Case endorsed the block on the blocked user's talk page, and I must say I agree. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight update

Related logs:

• usurpation of the Oversight username
• creation of the new account

The email of User:Oversight now points to the oversight mailing list. Those with valid oversight requests (see the oversight page for what constitutes an oversight request) may use Special:emailuser/Oversight to have personal information made unrecoverable on English Wikipedia.

Thanks to ArbCom for implementing this feature. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea, and very useful. Far easier to track that down, I'd say. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why things were easier when I went to request an oversight about 10 minutes ago. Nice. Metros (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I would recommend fully protecting this userpage, since there is a link within it to Email, rather than just the normal "Email this user" sidebar link. All other redirects leading to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight are already fully protected for obvious reasons. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and went ahead and protected both the userpage & redirected talk page. Feel free to unprotect if someone comes up with a good reason... — Scientizzle 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this is a good idea, having used it for User:Mediation Committee recently. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah. Finally some action and less drama/bickering/long-winded discussion. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to set up similar dummy accounts for all of the other WMF mailing lists e.g. wikien-l, unblock-en-l, etc. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I have found plagiarism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jon_Elrod Who should I notify of the violation? The plagiarized part is the first half of the article.Indy501 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that is a copyvio strictly speaking. The wording is different and is based around basic facts. Second opinion requested however. Viridae^Talk 07:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio and plagiarism are different things. The format of the two passages are similar, but the wording is not, so I'm not sure whether it is strictly plagiarism. —Kurykh 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar? It was exactly the same. I changed the worst parts and am working on it more.Indy501 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're working on it, that's why it didn't appear to be plagiarism to Viridae and Kurykh. Could you link to the most recent version with the plagiarized material? Natalie (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism is not the same as copyright violation. Unattributed ideas, even if not word-for-word copies, can still be plagarized. If Historian John Doe arrives at the conclusion that "X caused Y", and you say "Y happened because of X" and DON'T say "John Doe said Y happened because of X", that's still plagarism even if its not a copyright violation. The one of the key reasons for verifiability is that it is right and proper to attribute to whom an idea came from... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indy, I believe, is referring to this revision, which has several lengthy word-for-word copies. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on possible trolling

The Register has published a high-profile article on Jossi (talk · contribs) which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi and Prem Rawat. Given The Register's readership, there's a distinct likelihood of trolling/personal attacks on Jossi's user and talk pages as well as the COIN and the article on Prem Rawat. It would be helpful if people could watchlist them for a few days while this plays out. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• What, in addition to the trolling by Cla68 on Jossi's talk page and criticism of Wikipedia? You don't say. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a likelihood of honest questions. And diversionary answers. And animosity. Y'know what, none of this helps WP: "someone's taking an admin to task, let's all of us admins, every man Jack of us, protect him". It's precisely what the anti-WP crowd looks for. We don't need to serve it with Dom Perignon •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line to be drawn between that and "let's not allow any hint of suppression of the agenda of a banned user". Guy (Help!) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

unbiased look at some external links, please

Third opinion please. This user added these external links- Special:Contributions/Mohammedz1. Actually, it's a link to one web page with the title of the link taylored to each article. I reverted and left him a note asking him not to add inappropriate links. He feels I was wrong, and that the link is appropriate. If someone could look at the additions and let us know what you think, I would appreciate it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MHO - Just took a look. It looks like a blog, however, I may be wrong about that as it's

totally in Arabic. We may need to have an Arabic reader take a look. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a language bar on the top right of the page that translates to English. It certainly looks like a blog - a video blog, to be precise - in English. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks need matching

Suspected sock puppets has a considerable backlog. Experienced editors and administrators can help investigate these reports. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Will add my efforts now. Rudget. 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with AIV helperbot

On one occasion an account with an inappropriate username had been blocked for a definite period of time (not indefinitely). I tried to report it to WP:UAA for username violation requesting that it be blocked indefinitely, but as soon as I added its entry to the page, an AIV helperbot removed it stating that it had already been blocked even though it was not blocked indefinitely. Is there any workaround to this problem?--Urban Rose 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to JIMBOBOB2 - it's already been indefinitely blocked. Rudget. 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No it was a different user a while back. I can't remember the name but I remember having this problem.--Urban Rose 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Rudget. 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd report that to the bots User_talk page, the bot owner should be monitoring that and is best placed to help --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-term spam campaign

I have my concerns regarding a user who I suspect may be a WP:SPA and has been massively linking, over a period of many months, to an adult oriented website. The user in question is FranchisePlayer (talk · contribs) who has been dedicated to ensuring that a link to "Boobpedia" sticks in certain articles. I have brought this up at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers but at this point I'm not sure that is sufficient. Several requestions have been raised, including: Is this link acceptable under WP:EL and WP:BLP and following that, is this acceptable use of a single purpose account? RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• This site has been promoted before, in good faith, by people who are fans of it. The biggest problem is that people link it as a source for factoids, but it fails all rational interpretations of sourcing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Major concerns on Talk:Muhammad

That entire thread is bad enough, but as an FYI, there is one anon user (User:72.48.250.225) who has taken the conversation off into what amounts to a flame war, and refuses to back down. Another user (User:WilyD) has tried to take the edge off by removing the flame war-laden section, but the former user is hell-bent on continuing to place that section back and accuse Wily of censorship. I've placed a 3RR on the anon's page, and have spoken to Wily, but other folks may be able to help, as I was one of those in the original flame war (I've since backed off and am trying to settle this one down). --Mhking (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've since blocked her for 7 hours and told her to read 5P and CIVIL, by-the-by. That place is become an extreme problem and blanking a lot of the trolling, baiting, personal attacks, impersonal attacks, rants, raves and offtopic arguments is going to be needed if we want to restore it to a place where constructive talk can occur on how to improve the article (which is in lousy shape). WilyD 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the current climate, it's impossible to use that page for constructive dialogue - I did suggest a couple of days ago that the main talkpage should be effectively abandoned and that all "work" should be done on a sub-page - at least for the present. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to comment that the traffic today seems considerably lower than yesterday, then found out the article just got slashdotted. Hopefully that doesn't affect things much, and serious discussion on any productive changes (i.e.: image placement) might have a better chance at leading somewhere within a few days. Resolute 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read that tread and the IP (User:72.48.250.225) was in no way uncivil. In addition User:WilyD is hell-bent on removing a vaild discussion. They also go and block the IP? What you were doing Wily was edit warring on a talk page! You then used your admin tools to block the editor you were in conflict with! You then made treats to block another editor who disagreed with you! Thats what is happening here. --Domer48 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Domer I too have read the thread and I cant find any incivility by the blocked IP. And admin involved in an edit war should not block the editor they are in conflict with and then warn me with a block for what im not sure. BigDunc (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of incivility on that talk page that goes unnoticed and unaddressed. WilyD did not archive an entire section, he deleted an entire section, again and again and again, even though it contained valid, on-topic points (through example) on how images for articles are chosen. Then, when all "incivility" was removed through a large edit, he continued to remove the entire thread (at least twice) for unknown reasons, while threatening to block both the original poster and BigDunc. This is bully editing, article-"ownership", and it is unacceptable. While the thread does deal with another article (penis) frequently referred to on the Muhammed talk page, the thread is completely on-topic and makes some valid points about the nature of censorship, and editing decisions on what images to include or exclude. Its repeated deletion (and WilyD's blocking and threatened blockings of other users) cannot be justified nor tolerated.70.112.75.86 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes things just need to be archived to /dev/null. I'll be happy to blank any other incivilites that are troubling you, by-the-by. WilyD 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mhking I see it was not personal with you and the IP and you did post a warrning on WP:3RR. WilyD was in a good two minutes later with the block. I suppose filling out a 3RR report is just for us editors, and we don't have the ability to block at will. I still think it is wrong for an Admin to block an editor who they are in dispute with, in fact I know it is. --Domer48 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mhking is calling an editor a troll not a personal attack, is it also a failure to assume good faith. That must breach our policies on civility. --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying things like "Editors here: watch out. Your actions are not going unnoticed" alone seems like a valid reason to block. This IP user was getting pretty hot under the collar and a short time-out to cool off seems to be justified. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your actions are not going unnoticed." Seems like they did not go unnoticed. User:Mhking seemed to be getting hot under the collar here. The blocking Admin was editing warring, a sure sign of getting a bit hot too. Should they also cool off. Block themselves perhaps? --Domer48 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was getting hot under the collar -- which is why I backed off and asked for help here; additionally, I freely admitted being involved in the flamewar when I posted here. I'm not proud of it, but like I said, I'm trying to back off of being as visceral as I have been with this topic. I am certainly not blameless here. But I would like things to settle down as much as everyone else here. --Mhking (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that a lot of people where becoming inflamed and incivil is why I opted to just blank the section rather than hand out warnings & blocks. WilyD 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate warning to be give to an editor from WilyD? BigDunc (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly perceived incivility in the topic in question. While it would seem that the user had later restored the topic with "incivility removed", the post itself is only of peripheral relevance to the article in question and runs on the bad faith assumption that editors are merely including these pictures with the motive of inciting Muslim readers.

Instead of using specific examples to support such a charge/presumption, the user devotes almost all of the post itself to rant about the representation of images on an entirely unrelated article. What pertinence do the problems of the penis article have to this article in particular? The analysis of that article alone violates WP:AGF, and the connection made seems entirely based on a blanket picture of Wikipedia editors.--C.Logan (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should post a note here, since I reverted User:WilyD's removal of that section once: I didn't see a real need to remove that section. The conversation was perhaps a bit hot, but things weren't getting out of control until the very end. That doesn't warrant, in my opinion, removal of the entire section - instead, a pleading from a disinterested party to step back from the discussion for a little while might have worked out better, with removals of only the content that truly crosses the line into personal attacks (and not the entire section). As for the topic of that section, while I disagree strongly with the IP editor's assertions, I don't feel that they're irrelevant to the discussion. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Block revieww requested:

User talk:Optimus91. Hmm? User requests unblock, blocking admin has yet to comment. Yeah or nea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need Ryulong's input in order to support this block. Indef block w/o explanation would not be my preferred action here. I think the only question is how long do we wait for a response. Another 12 hours? Anyone else? Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good faith account being blocked indefinitely without warning. I'd say unblock until a satisfactory explanation is given by the blocking admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we assume good faith of administrative actions unless there's reason to believe otherwise. The block can stand until Ryulong returns to discuss it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean "assume everyone always does the right thing". If he was blocked without explanation, the explanation should be obvious. If it's not obvious, it was a bad block and should be undone. Friday (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, the block has already been lifted by another admin, and I don't see that there's any immediate reason to reimpose it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been unblocked by Ryan Posthlewaite. Blocks, not being punitive, are not maintained if it is not believed that the user poses any threat to Wikipedia. Counting this discussion AND the user's own talk page, there are no less than 7 admins who seem to think the indefinate block was unjustified. If and when the user does something in the future that merits a block, they can receive a second one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, didn't realist there was this discussion - I was responding to a CAT:UNBLOCK request, I wouldn't have unblocked so quickly if I knew it was up for review here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the block or unblock, I found this [24] to be an unnecessary stirring of the pot. Just a note. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, FWIW, factually inaccurate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Ryan's unblock pending a response from User:Ryulong on the original block, which, btw, I absolutely do assume was made in good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock looks well-founded. Based on this, is there a connection between this account and a previous account? --SSBohio 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 Note: Optimus91 is checkuser-confirmed to be making disruptive edits while logged out. I don't know why Ryulong did not say so, and a brief block and a talking-to would have been more appropriate for a first time offense, but Optimus91 is not lily-white, here. Thatcher 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should have made that distinction, but I forgot to, at the time. I have not been online for that long now, and I was just dealing with a banned user's newest sockpuppet by trying to find a range based on what I already know from his logged out edits.

With Optimus91, I have been dealing with edits out of a particular range belonging to SingNet for the past couple of days to articles that I edit. One page has been replaced wholesale by the text of another page for no reason that I can see. I asked Thatcher to check out the range to see if there was going to be any collateral damage, and Optimus91's name came up. I didn't do anything for a bit until I found the same vandalism, again, as well as other deleterious edits to other pages while logged in. I blocked him for that reason. His edits are made in good faith, but they are not beneficial.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting edits (image vandalism?)

DVOO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user inserted a picture of Jojo's feet into her article, which remained there for two weeks. He also tried to put this image in Caroline Flack. His upload log[25] suggests a common theme. Pseudonymed (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, partialism... нмŵוτнτ 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The crude photoshop at Special:Undelete/Image:Carolineflacknude.JPG seems enough for a block, IMO... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to block, definitely. Normally if they added stuff like that in words they'd be blocked already. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Review unblock-auto request

User talk:ACMEMan is claiming an autoblock has caught him unfairly, however some of his edits seem questionable of themselves, including Reporting someone HE is supposed to be a sockpuppet of, for vandalism, and reporting VOAbot as a vandal, and perhaps impersonating an admin. What think you all? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed massive sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gsnguy. Thatcher 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As the checkuser who ran the above case that Thatcher mentions, I strongly recommend not unblocking at this time, given the evidence that Checkuser produced. Indeed, if any admin who wants to review the findings on RFCU and act accordingly, they should feel free to do so - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, this guy is...amazingly ungood. In addition to his sock activity, attempted to lock out both me and Mrschimpf by using the "forgot password" utility. Each of us discovered, the morning after reporting him, a "forgotten password" e-mail. I don't normally descend into histrionics, but I BEG of you, please, PLEASE do not unblock this user or any of his socks. Thanks. Gladys J Cortez 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Threat of legal action, etc., over editing of Breyer State University

There is continuing contention over the article about Breyer State University (an unaccredited online institution). The article apparently is the subject of OTRS Ticket Number 2007080910015888. I've received e-mail (source untraceable), apparently from Dr. Dominick Flarey at Breyer State, complaining that I had reverted edits by User:JzG that had been made as a result of an earlier exchange between Dr. Flarey and JzG, which was included in the e-mail. (In fact, I believe the only thing I had done contrary to JzG's edits was to remove some statements that JzG had added with a "citation needed" template. I removed them because they were unsourced statements about Dr. Flarey made with no indication as to where they came from. Based on the e-mail I received, it appears that they were based on e-mail he had received.) Today User:Romulus33 made extensive changes to the article, mostly removal of sourced information. Some of his edits removed information based on an article in The New Republic. The edit summary says "The New Republic is not a reliable source - see Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. The article quoted has been withdrawn by the magazine." (Note that the New Republic article cited has nothing to do with Beauchamp.) The summary for a later edit says "The statements removed lack factuality, drew legal conclusions, and were libelous. Please refrain from re-inserting these statements again as legal action may be undertaken." I have restored sourced information to the article, but I am disturbed about the attempts to intimidate me into not editing the article. --Orlady (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• The management of this place have been agitating for years to exclude any mention of the fact that just about everybody calls it a diploma mill. We can't fix the fact that the world thinks their business is a scam. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I took a look at Romulus33's contribs for a possible WP:NLT block, but JzG has already taken care of business. Obviously, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable and the indef block was appropriate. — Satori Son 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

disclosing deleted histories of articles?

In what situations is it appropriate to disclose the deleted history of an article? A user asked me for the deleted history of a category and I want to make sure that I am allowed to disclose it. The reason I'm asking is because former administrator Everyking (talk · contribs) was de-sysopped for offering to disclose deleted content.

Thanks in advance. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking was de-sysopped because the content in question had privacy concerns attached to it. Some admins have a policy of releasing content as long as it's not a BLP violation, an attack page, spam, or contains a privacy violation. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and if it's not a copyright violation either, I always userfy these pages on request. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the information. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the history of a category is unlikely to be useful most of the time. —Random832 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive link-spamming on Edison Chen photo scandal and Talk:Edison Chen photo scandal

User:JSIN has been aggressively posting spam links on the abovementioned pages, and has reverted all my attempts to suppress them. An administrator's (or two, or five) attention would be much appreciated Ohconfucius (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request from Abbott Corp.

I blocked the username User:Abbott Corp. Public Affairs per Wikipedia:Username policy. I got the following response by email:

I am a member of the Abbott Corporate Public Affairs team. We have a great respect for the importance of wikipedia and the need to have the most accurate information contained within its pages. In an effort to ensure that wikipedia entries are factually accurate and up-to-date on Abbott-related pages, we attempted to set up a username that would provide complete transparency for any edits that we propose. However, before we had the opportunity to suggest even a single edit, our account was blocked indefinitely.

It is extremely important to us -- and I would hope all users -- that the information contained on the site be accurate. We have no desire to make editorial changes and we believe that the credibility of our edits can only be enhanced by full disclosure as to who we are. We do not want to use this site as a promotional tool. However, we know that the site is an important reference and, therefore, we believe that factual edits, made with complete accountability can only add value to the content.

We would appreciate if you would unblock our editing capabilities and allow us the full disclosure we seek. Alternatively, please advise us as to the best method to make factual corrections for Abbott-related sections. Thanks.

Tom

Should I do anything other than cite the username policy back to them? NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would probably cite WP:COI to them and ask him how his boss will react when Abbott appears in a news article as a Wiki-spammer. Ronnotel (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd write a polite note asking them to mindful of WP:COI, reliable sources and verifiability, and thank them for acknowledging that they do not want to use the site as a promotional tool; and of course citing the username policy, as you suggest, is the right thing to do, IMO. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec):I'd say that's OK, particularly "Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted". They can always email the Foundation if they seriously dispute any content. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A particularly helpful site to point him to is Wikipedia Scanner. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It looks like he's being pretty open about who he is and who he works for, which is refreshing, but the username block was the right thing to do here. I'd offer an explanation of the username policy, point out COI issues as above, and maybe give him a pointer towards OTRS as an alternate route to expressing any concerns with articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• The name would be OK if it's confirmed as a single editor, but of course role accounts are forbidden. Let's make sure, though, that we're not preventing them fixing a pressing problem of neutrality (I don't know, I haven' seen the article). Guy (Help!) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have they made bad edits? No? Then let them be. If a company is openly delcaring a potential COI for all to see and observe (as we tell them to by our own policy and we so commonly encourage), then by all means let them edit. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if 1 person or 4 are editing from the same username? If the company shows issues and doesn't comply with our rules, /then/ block, don't block because you think they /might/ create problems. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've got it badly wrong, the GFDL licence is a personal licence, not a corporate one, and if this is the case, lumping contributions together is probably the reason we don't permit role, or group accounts. It's an issue of accountability, as I see it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then I more than willingly will accept that as a reason to block role accounts. Historically, I thought it was for other reasons. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, (puts on lawyer hat) if the Foundation is sued for libel, it would be great if it could join the perpetrator of the allegedly libellous edit as a co-defendant and sit back as an "innocent publisher", as long as that editor can be identified. The problem with group/role accounts is that one would then get into difficult issues about vicarious liability, so it's better just not to allow them. Makes perfect pragmatic legal sense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Copyright is copyright; they can own it, they can license it, and it says nothing about excluding them. Corporations can and do contribute under the Gnu licenses (IBM under the GPL, for example). We can say with near certainly that some corporations have already paid people to edit Wikipedia. If the foundation gets sued, we say "sec. 230, not content creator" and turn over the editing records. It doesn't really matter to us whether a corporation or individual might be liable.

I applaud their disclosure of COI. Let's see what they have to offer. Cool Hand Luke 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...

or is the Scottish Wikipedia a joke? see sco:template:Delete and read the text phonetically in your best Feegle accent. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is the English Wikipedia...Maybe you're looking for Meta?John Reaves 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See this - apparently they are serious, and thats how they write ;-) Avruchtalk 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been there, and they sound like that too. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh... what does this have to do with AN? 86.149.135.37 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they are serious but I couldn't help myself when reading that page, "Here at Wikipaedia it's recommendit that fowk uises "tradeetional" pan-dialect spellins." traedeetional reads like a very bad typo, just priceless. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What next, bork bork Wikipedia? I mean, if Google can do it: [26], why not? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help from admin who understands Japanese

Can an admin who understands Japanese please leave a message for Atsushi7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asking what they are doing? The editor keeps making a user page in Japanese and asking for it to be deleted. It's getting a bit tedious to delete it. He is also using:

• Atsushi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atsushi4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atsushi22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atsushi24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atsushi25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The deletion log for Atsushi4 is just ridiculously long. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just block them all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also related to Akanemoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has had the pages deleted and restored numerous times, not to mention many listings at deletion review to then get them restored again. Certainly disruptive. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also here as Atsushi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked 26 likely socks. John Reaves 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor was more active than I thought. I was trying to be nice and figure out what he was up to, but blocking all of the accounts is fine with me, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

VBS:Malware-gen reported on 100megsfree4.com

Resolved

 – False-positive. Non-administrator "resolution".

x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• See - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.100megsfree4.com_-_fairly_urgent_request

I've done an emrgency blacklist on the domain untill more can be determined. --Hu12 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no infection. I've sandboxed Firefox and Internet Explorer to see what files have been created, but have nothing suspect. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing either. Although I wonder if we're potentially linking to one of their sites a bit too much. Spam perhaps? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

x42bn6, do you have avast! or another kind of anti-virus program? I used to enter the same site and not get any kind of virus detected either. I have avast! now and I when I went on a site the avast! reported that something from the site was using VBS:Malware-gen to try and infect my computer. www.100megsfree4.com isn't a huge loss anyways, it is a free hosting site. The owners of the sites within www.100megsfree4.com can branch out under a different host if they want to.

^demon, no, most of the links, which came from professional wrestling articles, were actually decent. They came from a site within 100megsfree4 called Wresting Information Archive and was quite useful. Sites on the 100megsfree4 domain should be blacklisted off and whitelist specific ones without malware until better sites are provided. One of the specific links that I tried that had this Malware on is in the history of this article. The link on this site specifically had the worm on it (not to mention the wrestling ones I found earlier). — Save_Us † 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I use AVG. I've run it through my sandboxing software and I did find one webpage that had that YOU ARE THE 99,999,999TH PERSON TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE CLICK HERE TO WIN A PRIZE advertisement but otherwise nothing. Do check this, though: [27] - do any of those links start screaming the same message? It seems it's a false positive (AVG has some, too). There are no dirty JavaScript or Visual Basic Script files generated for me. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. False positive most likely, if you see that Image it shows a false positive on the avast! forum (the irony). I'll ask Hu12 to remove it. — Save_Us † 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a false positive then. It's no longer blacklisted. Always better to be safe than sorry. Thanks for the feedback and report. --Hu12 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, I iz post virus link. I think we can mark this as resolved? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

134.139.148.100

• 134.139.148.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been reverting my edits without explaination. Could his edits be reverted please? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's discussion about it possibly being a Grawp sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp#Related parties?, though not that IP. I'm not familiar with Grawp but perhaps you should raise it there? x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem of a single purpose account carring out vandalism is the same, but the pattern of editing is different. I can raise the issue there if you wish, but I think this is a seperate, unrelated and possibly a one-off case. Could this vandalism be reviewed here?--Gavin Collins (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

I've had a {{editprotected}} placed on Template talk:Film for over two days now without any response whatsoever. Would someone be so kind as to have a look? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, protection has expired, unless I'm missing the obvious. I have to be away, could someone check this please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What? It's indefinitely full protect. Anyhow, the edit looks good to me. Done. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

conduct of Nlu

The article criticisms of the BBC is at present little better than a poor and muddled attack article, Nlu feels my effort to discuss my concerns about it on the talk page should be silenced and has removed my comments and locked the talkpage. I feel this action is an abuse of power by someone who appears to want to maintain the highly POV status quo of the article my silencing me. 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad image

 Done Image:Female genitalia inner.JPG should be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent its use for the purpose of vandalism, with exceptions for the current use of this image in Vulva and Vagina. Thanks. John254 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will be done momentarily. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is now on the Bad image list. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Are chronic violations of this ever actionable by an admin? If so, is there some sort of guideline or rule of thumb that's followed? Or is this an RFC type issue? I seem to be having trouble with some editors apparently wanting to block changes to an article by chronically ignoring my points and questions, forcing me to restate them over and over (and over...) again on the Talk page. I've been blocked many o' time on 3RR with some of these same editors, so I'm strictly staying to the Talk page to work out suggested changes beforehand, but it's been tricky getting any sort of truely collaborative, on-point discussion going. Merciful guidance in this matter would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this being the sole grounds for admin action. I'd suggest getting more input from other users WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB are good places to start, as are appropriate wiki-projects. Of course if this is blatant vandalism (changing articles without discussing changes, etc), well thats either a user conduct RFC or a report to WP:AN/I. MBisanz ^talk 06:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the shortcut you reference is a Behavioral Guideline which has a mandate of "While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it." MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Because I kept getting gamed into 3RR, I swore off touching the main pages (except for vandalism and major undiscussed edits) without getting some of agreement on the Talk page. That has resulted in a lot of "discussion" along the lines of, say, my proposing to change some blatant, unsupported bit of POV, listing a pile of reasons and refs, and then getting as a response something like, "Excellent idea and worthy of discussion -- let's start with your use of the word "The". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronic refusal to get the point is a form of disruption. Depending on how important the point is, it definitely can be grounds for blocking. In your case, for example, if I find you are still defaming a certain individual then yes you will be blocked - I notice you are still obsessively editing only one subject. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all with "obsessively editing only one subject" as long as the editing is within policy.. ie: sourced, formatted, BLP neutral, etc. Geesh. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're an OTRS volunteer and know about VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 and VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799, yes? Or maybe you're actually just trolling, with no actual idea of the past problems Callmebc's edits have caused. Callmebc was released from an indefinite block only on the strict understanding that there would be no further disruption. This is apparent from the user's talk page. Maybe you didn't research quite that deeply before commenting. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling for what?? Nope, I'm not an OTRS volunteer nor do I know about those tickets.. they are pointless considering. You laid out such a broad statement that "obsessively editing only one subject" is a bad thing, a no-no - which it isn't as I pointed out. AGF. It goes a long way. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:167.1.163.100

Possible shared IP with long block history made another dubious edit here. Posted here for appropriate review. Ward20 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User Mr final x's improperly placed rfa

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mr final x doesn't actually show up on the rfa list and isn't even filled out right. This is this user's only edits to the Wiki. Was going to just CSD it but I couldn't think of what to call it. So I'll just bring it up here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedied as a test page (CSD G2). — Edokter • Talk • 12:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Old AFD got missed

Resolved

I notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads has been open for a while past its due date, but it is no longer listed with the old AFDs (although properly logged, otherwise). Is there a generalized way for highlighting these sorts of AFDs? I've seen several such posts here in the past, and I couldn't figure anything else...Someguy1221 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted-edit counter?

Hi there...I was steered here from the Help Desk. Is there a way to find out how many of a given user's edits have been reverted? There's an IP-only user who's been inserting false info into lots of articles for months; I've analyzed the pattern of this specific vandalism, and it looks like he has two locations, and that one of his addresses is a static IP. Though that IP has been progressively blocked over the last 2 days, I'd like to create a case that the IP should be permablocked; obviously, the more bad edits, the more likely it is that it's a mostly-vandal or vandal-only account. (His dynamic IP, at his "other" location, is a little more troublesome; I'm compiling data to see if I can pin down a range, but so far, no luck.) Thanks for any help you can give me...Gladys J Cortez 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 209.247.5.81 to add fake information into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk)

I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 209.247.5.81 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk)