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

Primetime = plagiarism

• Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime

Also editing as 67.2.145.xxx, 67.2.148.xxx, and 67.2.149.xxx)

We just discovered many Primetime sockpuppets, some dating back to January (he was banned May 12 2006 [1]).

Virtually every significant contribution Primetime has made is plagiarized. When confronted, he lies, blusters, and refuses to add sources or produces oddly formatted bibliographies of old books. Typical sources for him are online reference sources (World Book, Grove's Music, etc) that require special access and are not searched by Google. He'll keep insisting he has written the material himself until confronted with proof, when he becomes contrite and promises to repent. Primetime is a true troll, picking fights to cause disruption.

His general areas of interest recently have been encyclopedias and other reference works, letters of the alphabet (esp. A, J, T), the Spanish language, Latin America, World Heritage sites, Third World countries, and China. He has participated as a staunch inclusionist in AfDs, especially those for list of slurs. He's even created MOS guidelines (also clearly plagiarized) and tried to get them adopted.[2]

This new crop of sockpuppets have been accused repeatedly of adding inappropriate material or even plagiarism, but no one guessed the connection. Anytime we suspect plagiarism and it's being vigorously denied we should consider that it may be the work of Primetime. -Will Beback 08:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I can help out with the subscriptions. I have World Book, Grove's music/art, AccessScience, Britannica, MacquarieNet, ABS, Safari Books Online, NetLibrary and more. Contact me if you need me to check something in future. --nkayesmith 08:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was contacted by someone who admitted to using a large number of accounts, but denied being Primetime. After further investigation I've decided that he is probably correct. I've asked him to refrain from using socks in the future and have unblocked his main account, Balthazarduju (talk · contribs). -Will Beback · † · 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo blocked

(Moved from ANI)

I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo for these two edits: [3] and [4]. Both are flagrant harassment and intimidation - links to Scientologist websites smearing the people he's asking for comments from. Terryeo has already been put on personal attack parole by the arbcom, but this kind of intimidation and threat goes far beyond the pale, and needs to be stopped immediately and firmly. Terryeo has shown himself to be a dedicated POV pusher and bully. There is no sensible reason for his continued participation here. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment here to say that Terryeo's blocking is well justified and long overdue. After the Wikipedia community has bent over backwards to allow him to still post to talk pages -- and, of course, he was completely free to edit articles not related to Scientology -- Terryeo spent the past seven or eight months pushing his ridiculous "personal Web sites are not allowed" argument on the talk pages, and even attempting to alter Wikipedia's policy to support his position. His real purpose, of course, was to "handle" the Scientology articles in a fashion that would remove all criticism of Scientology from Wikipedia. (Any of the regular contributors to the Scientology articles will certainly agree with me on this, I have no doubt.) He was never here to work towards NPOV and create a collaborative encyclopedia; hence, I am fully in favor of his being banned. The only down side to blocking Terryeo is the strong likelihood of Scientology following its (unalterable) policy: now that he's blocked, he will disappear from Wikipedia completely and a new sock puppet will arrive. This sock puppet will pick up where Terryeo left off, trying to find a new method of handling all of the entheta here on Wikipedia. --Modemac 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless he takes a crash course in spelling, grammar, logic, rhetoric and common sense, it won't be very hard to spot him. yandman 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom provides for "up to" a one year ban Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with indef, but the ban should be logged on the case page, and you might want to post a request for clarification in prior case, just to be safe. Thatcher131 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the block is well justified, especially so after an entire year of steadily abusive and disruptive behavior from Terryeo. BTfromLA 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Terryeo's crude attempts at defamation go beyond that which was discussed at the Arbcom discusson and therefore there is no reason not to indef ban him (although, to be honest, I don't think that changing the block to one year will change anything, and it will please the more pedantic members of the community). However, I think that to avoid any complications, you should put a small paragraph on his user page, where it can be seen more easily (I only found this thread by looking through your contributions). yandman 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom can ban up to a year, but the community can ban indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now now - sometimes we trade in for a better model of POV pusher. I've heard no complaints about whatever the latest model from the LaRouchies is, for instance. Phil Sandifer 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the edits containing these links should not be deleted? Newyorkbrad 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably should at least stay in the edit history for a bit while people decide whether to be upset that I violated process ZOMG. But probably not, no. :) Phil Sandifer 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this kind of thing is utterly unacceptable and he can get lost. Guy 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with JzG. It's not entirely necessary to get the edits removed, however invloving ArbCOm is also not entirely necessary as there is a clear cut decision here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out, just to emphasize that the right decision was made, that Terryeo was previously blocked for harassment using exactly this modus operandi (linking to a webpage which contains personal attacks/threats upon the editor, pretending he is simply presenting that link to that editor for information). He knew well that what he was doing was unacceptable, but he thought he could get away with it anyways. To prove him wrong is what Wikipedia needed to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the MONGO/ED ruling, engaging in or linking to offsite attacks is every bit as unacceptable as personal attacks within Wikipedia. We are better off without the kind of user who gets their jollies this way. Guy 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely missed this fuss - haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. That was a very creepy (almost stalkerish) thing Terryeo did and incredibly stupid too, considering his probation. I agree entirely with the ban - it's a carbon copy of the MONGO/ED situation. -- ChrisO 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Terryeo disapproved of the link, and was hoping that bringing it to the attention of interested editors might get it removed from Wikipedia articles, not harrass other users. Is there any way to discuss a link one disapproves of without linking to it? I think I'm missing something here.  : ( Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Terryeo disapproved of the link" <-- do you have evidence that these external links exist/existed somewhere else in Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Based on reading Talk:David S. Touretzky#Request_for_a_comment and User talk:Terryeo#Indefinitely_blocked, I got the impression that it was. However, you are right that whether or not these links are or were somewhere else on Wikipedia would be good to know, so I'll try to find out. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New York meet-up

I hope I'll be forgiven this interruption, which isn't like me, but three New York City-based administrators have indicated unawareness of next month's New York meet-up, so thought I would post the link here for those so inclined. Newyorkbrad 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How long is it before some disgruntled nutjob shows up at one of these things? Or a journo, or indeed a process server? (Not really an admin matter, I confess, although admins are rather more likely to be the targets of the above types than the average wikipedian). Shudder. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I don't have any plans to attend for a good long while. (Not saying which of those I am.) (Oh, and Finlay? WP:BEANS.) Geogre 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, the LaRouchies showed up at a St. Petersburg meetup ages ago. Ask Raul654 about it, or Mindspillage. FreplySpang 17:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a Saturday, so that makes it difficult for me -- Avi 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're at least the second person to say that. I am not one of the people who planned it, but you might want to post under "Regrets" on the page so maybe a different day of the week is chosen next time. Newyorkbrad 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a new vandal tool out there?

I've seen a number of vandals today who have been replacing articles with the usual variety of vandalism. The interesting thing is all have edit summaries that read "Replacing page with" followed by the beginning of the vandalism text, for example see the edit summaries of [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] and there are a lot more out there. I haven't seen these before today, and there's a sudden rash of them. Is this the signature of some sort of vandal tool that's come into use, or is this just coincidence? Gwernol 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's automatic if you blank the entire page and don't leave an edit summary now. Don't ask me where this is documented, I guessed when I saw it earlier and only confirmed it just now by blanking a sandbox page myself. Great idea though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that certainly explains it. Thanks, Gwernol 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. This seems to be resulting in a lot more profanity and such in the edit summaries in histories. Whereas without it they simply went away buried in the history. JoshuaZ 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? I don't get it. Anything that makes vandalism and blanking easier to fix sounds like a good thing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is is that it means that people who don't care for profanity and such are much more likely to see it than they would have otherwise since they will see it whenever they look at the history. JoshuaZ 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Will they die? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. I thought this was a new vandal who was out to make a point, by saying what he was doing. It's a new feature? Fooled me. I guess I must be letting too much RC patrol mess with my head. Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Redirecting to $page" has been an auto-summary for a while as well. [10] Is there a list somewhere of all the auto-summaries? It would be helpful to be aware of all of them. --Interiot 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent due to table) They're listed at Special:Allmessages. I found three:

Page	Text
MediaWiki:Autoredircomment	Redirecting to $1
MediaWiki:Autosumm-blank	Blanking page
MediaWiki:Autosumm-replace	Replacing page with '$1'

I tested them in my sandbox, all are operational. MER-C 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've copied that to m:Help:Edit summary. --Interiot 08:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It works. Who created all these auto summaries. Autoredirect in edit summaries have been present for a few months. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blame me ;-) r17609 — Werdna (not logged in) 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I vandalized my sandbox :) the feature works nicely. This will be a help in vandal-fighting. --Aude (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These automated edit summaries are great; much thanks to whoever created them. Although, my favorite new thing (I hope it's new, I just noticed it) is the edit summary preview that appears just below the edit summary now. Helps to see what wikimarkups will/won't work. -- AuburnPilot^talk 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone wanted to change this behaviour and put "automatic" in the edit summary that is created automaticially: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Automatic_edit_summaries&action=history and shttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Autosumm-replace&action=history ... that seems a bad idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I dislike it as well. It is confusing everyone into thinking sockpuppeting is occuring, and it doesn't seem all that necessary for an automatic summary, especially in this case. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes perfet sense to me, people are only confused because it is new. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who thinks that arrow looks weird? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was also going to ask about this! But then, I figured out myself that this was a new MediaWiki feature. --Ixfd64 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian G Crawford

I have had three or four emails from Brian G Crawford asking if he can be unblocked. You may recall that he was blocked due to some outbursts brought on by personal problems he has; these now appear to be under control. If he is unblocked he will need to be placed on some kind of civility parole, I think. Looking back at Brian G. Crawford (talk · contribs) he has not done much in mainspace to justify the disruption he has sometimes caused, and he has undoubtedly used socks (partly in an attempt at a fresh start), but his recent messages to me have been calm and civil. The most recent sock was Mr Spunky Toffee (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I don't mind watching him if one or two others want to join in, I know it's a bit of a leap of faith but maybe worth giving him another chance? WP:NOT therapy, but the outbursts of uncontrolled anger were a documented side-effect of some medication Brian was on he is now on different meds. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone else has had the type of consistent issues I had with him, but if my opinion means a thing at all here, I'm very open to it as long as he's clear that it's him and not a random sock and that he knows he'll be under some intense scrutiny. I'm fine with assuming the problems he had were medical, and I think it's worth another shot. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with this user, but I know all too well the possible emotional side effects of medication. If he is actually using something different that is not likely to cause outbursts, then I support lifting the block to give him a second chance (while keeping a close eye on him). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked. I will be keepin an eye on this to see what happens. . Actually, forget about that, several people have emailed me to protest that. Morwen - Talk 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you reblock, now. Point of fact #1: Brian Crawford is banned, indefinitely, from all Wikimedia projects by order of Brad Patrick. Point of fact #2: Brian Crawford has sent emails to Wikipedia editors threatening violence, including deadly violence. Point of fact #3: Brian Crawford specifically seeks to attack people who exhibit sexual or gender expression that deviates from his notion of "normal". His entire participation on Wikipedia is focused toward seeking vengeance against those whose sexuality disturbs him. There is no encyclopedic purpose for his participation on Wikipedia, and given the extremely disturbing actions he has repeatedly engaged in in the past, there is no reason to upset Brad's decision to ban him wholesale across all projects, protestations of his problems with his medications notwithstanding. (He's used that excuse at least twice before.)

I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am willing to break exile and not only edit Wikipedia, but edit a Wikipedia policy or process page, to discuss this issue. I disclose that I have been the target of Mr. Crawford's attacks. His communications to me threatened me with death, and have been submitted to the police as death threats and as evidence of a hate crime. He has also subjected other editors of Wikipedia to public ridicule for the "crime" of having what he feels is an inappropriate gender presentation. Mr. Crawford's communications with the Wikimedia Foundation were so disturbing that Brad summarily banned him from all projects. Jimbo has supported this ban and personally told me at Wikimania that he would do whatever was necessary to ensure that neither I nor any other Wikipedian was affected by this individual. I earnestly implore the Wikipedia community to reinstate this block and not disturb it for any reason. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{Personal Attack Removed} Badgerpatrol 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Already done, when I struck out my comment. I was not aware of these facts. My apologies. May I suggest User:Brian G Crawford be replaced with a salted page noting this? Morwen - Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note to such effect and protected the page. Feel free to modify my wording. Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, if I knew this, I wouldn't have vouched for a second shot on this, for the record. Interestingly enough, did the deletion of his userpage have any information on it regarding the rationale for the permaban?--badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Brian G. Crawford/Archive 2 if it helps  Glen  18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, same here. Unfortunately, my sympathy for those whose personalities have been negatively affected by psychoactive drugs (I've seen it first hand) got in the way of getting the facts before I commented. A permaban from all Wikimedia projects for death threats and the like? I don't think that's something you can come back from. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing beyond the standard indefblocked notice. The best thing in these cases is to ask the blocking admin, if they're still around. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The block log [11] is fairly suggestive as well: (Blocking for death threats, personal attacks per WP:AN/I discussion). Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up massively. I don't know what much more I can say. Morwen - Talk 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, mate, you just assumed good faith. That's not so very bad, and no harm is done in the long run. My bad, really, I should have spent longer reading up on the backstory. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why every month or so someone tries to come along and unblock one of the worst offenders we've ever had to deal with. It's like if I turn my back for even a little bit a troll that was sending out death threats is being invited back with open arms. It's ridiculous! Can we please just stop these misguided attempts at reforming people? The risk to benefit ratio is entirely out-of-whack. I can't really think of a situation in which it's succeeded, though of course, I can think of many instances in which it's failed. Our goal on Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to run a rehabilitation center, and people who've proven disruptive in the past don't get an infinite number of chances to keep coming back. --Cyde Weys 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Even the canonical example of Michael's mentorship accomplished little besides teaching him to vandalize and harass with sockpuppets instead of his primary account. —Cryptic 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's because, from my discussions with him, his outbursts are the result of a documented side-effect of medication (for which side-effects the medication is actually not used at all in the UK); he is now not on that medication any more. I don't think I am a soft touch when it comes to disruption and personal attacks, but I do have a small amount of understanding of Brian's illness (which is similar to but much worse than my own). But hey, I just thought I'd ask, to be neighbourly. There was never any chance I would unilaterally unblock him, that's for sure. Seems like opposition is so strong that it's not worth going to ArbCom. Either I didn't know about Brad's comments or I'd forgotten. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't give one flying fuck about his claimed illness; you make death threats, you're gone. End of fucking story. --Cyde Weys 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While not necessarily agreeing in tone, the question of illness must be largely irrelevant in these matters. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, accorded to those who can meet the standards which we've set (and those standards are exceptionally generous). Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the balance of one's mind being disturbed is a legitimate defence in law, and we are usually a bit more forgiving than the legal system. But there is no point beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for allowing second chances, as we all make mistakes from time to time. That said, I draw the line, a very solid and firm line, once the other party has resorted to making threats. In this particular case, as anyone can see from the block log, this person had more than his second chance and continually lost it; threats of bodily harm were made repeatedly, including death threats, as well as several vicious personal attacks against other dedicated members of the project. Not just on-wiki mind you, but via email and even telephone. Contribution logs won't show that, nor will they show some of the more offensive comments which have since been deleted. Wikipedia needs to be a place where everyone feels safe, and that means not welcoming this person back under any circumstances. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As a recipient of one of those threatening emails (forwarded to the foundation), I agree completely with the comments from Users:Kelly Martin, Cyde, Clown & Cie above. I don't like to see users blocked and wikipedia by definition needs to be a welcoming place. But at some point the welfare of the overall community of good faith users needs to take precedence. I have a hard time understanding why the question is periodically raised here, but indefinite blocks exist for a reason and death threats, real-world stalking and consistent vandalism would seem to be a good place to start. This users actions were such that I do not believe that wikipedia can ever welcome him back, for any reason and whatever the excuse. --JJay 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, indefinite means with no fixed endpoint. It doesn't (necessarily) mean permanent. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is true and you have been a long-term advocate for this user. But I see no compelling reason why he should be allowed to return now. In fact, based on his contribution history and actions, such as on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism farce, not to mention the most vicious personal attacks I've ever seen on wikipedia, or the very real on and off-site death threats, a permanent block is more than warranted. --JJay 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, this guy should have been shown the door in the first place and never allowed to return, otherwise we run into situations like this. Most of the time it is appropriate to WP:AGF, but not always. Even if he has Asperger's (as do I), he still should have the ability to cool it, especially on the internet. Even if he was on medication (which seems unrealistic) it doesn't grant him amnesty for the activities he did in which he knew better. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we fix this?

This does keep happening. Is it time to create a (fully protected) page somewhere and record every perma-block of a well established user, with a record of when and why and who? Block records are a good start, but for cases like this, they don't seem to be quite enough. Or is there some way to move the unblock button to make it more likely that the unblocking admin will read the unblock log before acting? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but if we can't even trust admins to check the block log before unblocking, what makes you think a separate page would have any effect? --Cyde Weys 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Better to put it on the user page and protect that. See a similar situation at User:Bobabobabo. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BU (Banned users) which, by a strange coincidence...oh never mind. Thatcher131 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

IP's closing AFD's

I was alerted here from bootcamp. Deletion Process says Editors in good-standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions. An IP closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 = .9 Repeating. IP's can't be "in good standing" technically because there basically public accounts. Any opinion from admins? (I'm not disputing the decision, but just asking for clarification here). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It all seems to be in good faith. Since it was redirected anyway instead of deletion, there isn't anything to worry about. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It might actually be an IP he's specifically rented. If you look into it traces back to a company that could apparently sell such a thing, and he mentions that he's several layers from the actual IP, which is an unusual setup you might have to pay for. This apparently hasn't been mentioned on his talk page, I suggest seeing what he has to say about it. In this specific case, does not seem like a bad close, so no real point wasting our time undoing it only to redo it. --W.marsh 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Same user attempted a speedy keep (twice) on another AFD - an obvious result, but slightly premature. Nothing to get in a panic about though. Yomangani^talk 02:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No non-admin can speedy-close anything, unless a nomination is withdrawn and there is no "delete" opinions given. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, especially if it's with obvious cases - I closed both AFDs for Buffalo sentence as speedy keeps. – Chacor 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with allowing anons to close AfDs as 'keep', or any other decision that doesn't require an admin to carry out, if the timespan has elapsed and the consensus is clear. If only admins are allowed to close AfDs, that gives them more priviledges than regular users unconnected to the software, which defeats the point of adminship not being a big deal. --ais523 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After all, we've got a main page saying "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." yandman 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can register :-) (unless their IP is blocked then they can't edit anyway) --W.marsh 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo (Part 4)

After some final calm discussion with Bobabobabo through email (and vandalism of my new ja-wiki name which she had originally taken from me) I believe that we should send her through RFAr in some way shape or form. — Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that this user be un-banned? If so, we can do that here. If not, he is already banned by the community and the Arbitration Committee is unnecessary. — Centrx→talk • 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I just know she keeps emailing me to get her unbanned, and this is the only way I know how for her to do so (I'm being helpful and assuming good faith with her). — Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

She also keeps sending long emails to the unblock list, complaining about you, Centrx, A Man in Black, and Interrobamf and asking us to email her "teacher". It has been proposed that she be banned from emailing the list. She says she wants to be unblocked so she can entertain herself on Wikipedia while she waits for her parents to pick her up from school...I really don't think unblocking is a good idea. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know of these actions on the unblocking email list. I just want her to stop bugging the shit out of me (I've been filtering her emails, and after she started doing anti-semitic bullshit at ja-wiki, she "apologized"). — Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No seriously, they seem to be spamming every sysop w/ a "I demand to be unblocked" message, with that kind of spamming I really wonder what is going on... -- Tawker 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo has completely exhausted everybody's patience; she's simply a petulant, lying child who has proven herself to be completely untrustworthy. I don't believe she deserves even the slightest of respect. Filter her e-mails and delete any you see on sight. She hasn't earned the right to be wasting anybody's time. Interrobamf 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Interrobamf said it best. Even if the story of this person wanting to edit Wikipedia while waiting for her parents to pick her up after school were true, WP:NOT a babysitter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me to come in on this one late, but even as I've followed this, what exactly did the user did that was so wrong, so as to deserve a permanent ban (other than the 81 sockpuppets and the lying about who she was - this is a serious question). Patstuart^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she used those 81 some odd sockpuppets (if they were or were not her) to edit war, attack other users, violate fair use criteria for several hundred screenshots, impersonate other users, utilize anonymiser open proxies, and exhaust our patience in dealing with her nonsense. — Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting daily emails from her too. I think just ignoring her pleas is fine. I haven't seen any evidence that the contributions she would make if unbanned would outweigh the trouble she has caused. I also don't see any remorse or signs of change in the repetitive messages she sends. I am always open to changing my mind but so far see no reason whatsoever to do so. --Guinnog 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be best to give her another chance, not out of deference, but so that we can monitor her rather than not know it's her sockpuppet screwing up? I'm usually not for letting trolls back into the 'pedia, and maybe it's because I didn't receive all these emails, but...Patstuart^{(talk) (contribs)}

Check out the history of my Japanese user page (the sockpuppet bullshit is because she originally registered with my user name and I got that blocked, and then the usernames changed after talking to Suisui, a ja-wiki bureaucrat in IRC; even after the username change, she attempted to reset my password with an IP that she has used here, so I know it was her). Do I deserve any of that when school is over let alone in session? Immediately after those socks were blocked, and I found ja:WP:VIP, she emailed me, and I posted this arbcom question here. Oh, and she also sent me a hate-filled e-mail before she apologized, quoting Hitler and what not. — Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that she is still this persistent at trying to come back. There's no evidence that this user shows remorse of any nature, I'm open to change my mind too about this issue too (like Guinnog above), but it would take a miracle of some sort. At the moment though, I wouldn't want her unbanned, based on the evidence I've read above. A ban from the mailing list probably wouldn't work as she would just come back with other IPs/email addresses. --SunStar Net 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be absolutely no question to keeping a user who's attempted to impersonate a teacher blocked. Anyone like Bobabobabo cannot be trusted on Wikipedia to respect policy. If she wants a second chance tell her to come back after she's grown older and hopefully wiser. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been receiving lenghty emails from a person claiming she (as a girl) got nothing to do w/ Bobabobabo. I got the teacher email. I also agree w/ Netsnipe. -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu getting married!

So you're saying I've only got until December 2nd?? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, apologies if this seems a little inappropriate for the AN board. Figured that I started this noticeboard off, might as well be one of the many to misuse it :-)

Anyway, this is just a short note to let everyone know I will be getting married in Sydney, Australia on the 2nd December! Email me through the email this user toolbar URL for details if you want to come to watch the big event and I vaguely know you :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

zOMG! Congratulations, ta_bu. Very happy for you. :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Its nice to read something positive here for a change, I'm sure no one minds the noticeboard abuse distraction.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I wish you the best! (Radiant) 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin: Yes, you've only got to 2 December. However, if you lose the latter part of your name to Ta bu shi da yu before 2 December, there might be a serious problem with Nick's head becoming unattached and suddenly being Radiant and appearing in Ta bu shi da yu's fiance's brain during her dreams about clowns causing her not to sleep. Please be careful. Congrats Ta bu shi da yu :) --Durin 14:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiancée, Durin, not fiancé, big difference there ;) – Chacor 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bah! I don't know which pronoun to use, and it wasn't clear from Ta bu shi da yu's userpage. So, I defaulted. So there! ptbptbptbptb :)))) --Durin 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, how can you assume which one it is? yandman 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yandman. We all know ta_bu is straight.  :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations, ta bu. I also wish you the best. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, ta bu. I wonder whether we might prevail upon you to confine your honeymoon to one day lest Category:Non-free image copyright tags, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, and Category:Images with unknown source should develop backlogs; I'm certain your wife won't mind... Joe 05:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Best of luck. =) Nishkid64 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Ixfd64 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should voting be mandatory?

A relatively new user has made a proposal (here) to increase the usage of voting on Wikipedia. Among others, he argues that all AFDs must be decided in favor of the majority (barring sockpuppetry), that campaigning for AFD votes is a good idea, that all policy/guideline proposals require voting to be enacted, and that the Developers must pay attention to majority votes with respect to feature requests.

An alarming tendency is that some people believe that this is exactly the way Wikipedia already works. I would appreciate it if some experienced users chimed in on the talk page to point out whether or not this is true. (Radiant) 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion. It's a fork of WP:DDV and clearly the debate should be at the existing page not this new one (which in any case seeks to reverse much of Wikipedia practice and some of WP:NOT). Guy (Help!) 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Currently approaching 20 entries, due to a sockpuppet parade. Please help out. MER-C 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog still grows instead of shrinking. Some 25 entries. HELP! Femto 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog will soon be half the size of Texas. yandman 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

appears to have been dfelt with.Geni 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They've eliminated half of Texas? Wow. (...which half?) Femto 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• That was easy. How about we target California next? Especially the southern part... ;) --Durin 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Input on copyright issue requested

A concern has arisen regarding User:Husnock's tagging of images. A case example regarding this issue has focused on Image:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg. The issue has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance but there's been no feedback in more than a day since it was posted. The matter has also been discussed at Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg. Related matters have been discussed at User_talk:Husnock#Copyright_issues_and_policies_of_Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if others would review and comment. Thank you, --Durin 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, other editor input is needed. Durin means well but has lost me with this interpretation of Wiki policy. My main point of confusion is that the source of the flag image has very clearly said it can be posted on Wikipedia and is not under copyright or royalty protection. -Husnock 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's much better if copyright permissions are mailed (ideally directly by the copyright owner, or in this case copyright-disclaimer-person) to OTRS. That way their email is always available to the Foundation in case of a dispute (which isn't true for mails that go to a specific wikipedian, who might well become uncontactable in 10 or 20 years). This also protects the confidentiality of the email (which appears to be an issue in this case). The OTRS people will put a tag on the image page giving the OTRS ticket number. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is the way it should be done. I have concerns that the actual permissions requested and granted are permission for use on Wikipedia, which is not compatible with our policies. I have e-mailed the City of Corpus Christi requesting clarification and specific release under GFDL but have not yet heard back. That addresses this particular case, but the general case of how Husnock is handling such requests to copyright holders remains unresolved and other related issues remain open as well. --Durin 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please pass the message on to permissions@wikimedia.org. I agree that the message regarding the Corpus Christi flag does not seem to indicate that it is PD, only that it may be reprinted, which isn't sufficient to claim it is public domain. (And also relating to that discussion, I don't see a privacy problem in giving at least limited contact information for a municipal employee whose job is dealing with the public's inquiries.)

In general, the permissions address exists so that people may be contacted, and that this information may be given without posting names and address on the wiki (though I don't see a privacy problem in giving at least limited contact information for a municipal employee whose job is dealing with the public's inquiries.) We'd like to believe that everyone is acting in good faith and everyone is correct about their assertions. But should there be any question about it, we must be able to confirm this even if you disappear off the face of the earth: who you contacted, exactly what they said, when they said it, etc., or otherwise when we're challenged on it later by someone else we don't have any way to prove that we were told otherwise.

Husnock, you might also be interested in using the boilerplate requests for permissions to be sure you're asking the right questions: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission -- permission to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. I appreciate your efforts to secure permission for these images, but I think Durin is in the right here; it's important that others can independently verify the information with minimal effort. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass image removal on Pharaoh and Cleopatra

I need immediate assistance in protecting this article. There is a user who is deleting over 3/4 of the images in the article, claming that the fair use law does not allow them to be there. I tried discussing this with user and asking him to stop until more inputs can be obtained, however the user continued on his campaign of image removal. I ask that the original article be restored and protected. I would do it myself as an Admin, but I am involved in the dispute. -Husnock 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has jumped to it. My many thanks. -Husnock 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't have worked anyway generaly trying to use protection as a weapon against another admin doesn't work.Geni 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I used protection to stop an edit war, not as a weapon. Please calm the tone down and allow me time to research the image problem and correct it. -Husnock 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you expect an out of process protection to stop an edit war between to admins? I can think of better ways.Geni 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because both admins would be mature enough to respect it and not abuse thier powers. I self reverted anyway after reviewing the policy (its been a while since I protected an article, at least several months) -Husnock 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco, California is now {{sprotected}}

I know this isnt recommended when on the front page but its fricken ridiculous when I come to the page after receiving a complaint on my talk page to see this - and to make matters worse the vandal is tag teaming with a sockpuppet (or worse yet another user) to produce this!

I notice the admin who unprotected this hasnt been watching it at all - meanwhile myself and other users are fighting like hell to defend it.

So, simple really - you unprotect it - you defend it. Please.  Glen  19:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page. To those who disagree with Glen, the page was constantly attacked, replaced with homophobic vulgarities which in one instance did not get reverted for seven minutes. I would suggest that enforcers of blind adherence to official policy check to see what the actual consequences of their actions are.--DaveOinSF 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm generally uncertain on the issue of Featured Article semi-protections, I have to say that the accepted wisdom that "if people can't edit the front page they'll be deterred from becoming editors" may be a case of valuing editors more than our readers, despite the fact that non-editing readers vastly outnumber editors and we're creating this encyclopaedia for them, not for us. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tho I think you'll agree that all is outweighed somewhat by the damage done by everyone (new or not) seeing HOME OF DICK SUCKING FAGGOTS WORLDWIDE for a full seven minutes as happened here  Glen  19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, directing readers expecting to read an article on San Francisco, California to a page with a screaming homophobic slur is truly keeping the readers' interests at heart. --DaveOinSF 19:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, guys. Sam Blanning^(talk) is agreeing with the decision to semiprotect as a service to readers who far outnumber editors.--Paul 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have my full support, but I thought it was fairly obvious that the point I was making was for semi-protection to front page articles (or at least against any automatic rejection of it). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a coordinated vandal attack... I don't think many people seriously are opposed to semi-protection for this kind of stuff. It's people who want to semi-protect after an article is vandalized twice in an hour... that's being frivilous with protection. --W.marsh 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism is the new dogma :-) Guy (Help!) 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While everyone is on the topic, just wanted to add a comment about another example: Tourette syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently attained featured status, and I won't submit it for the main page for concern that it would also be severely vandalized with coprolalia jokes (it's vandalized a lot now anyway, and I'm grateful to all the vandal fighters who've kept it on their watchlists). There are articles that could benefit from semi-protection if they are to be on the main page, and SF seems to be another one; this is a good example of when to employ WP:IGNORE. Sandy (Talk) 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about improving the quality of wikipedia articles. What doesn't get talked about as much, I think, is (a) the percentage of time that good editors spend fighting vandals (not edit wars, but clear vandalism, much if not most by hit-and-run anonymous IP addresses, where warnings and blocks are a waste of time), and (b) the impact on readers if an article is vandalized - every 15 minutes of unreverted vandalism equals 1% of a day's worth of visiters seeing something ranging from juvenile greetings to homophobic ranting. John Broughton | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was just unprotected and prompty vandalized 13 times in 11 minutes. This is vastly beyond the normal level of FA vandalism, and obviously it's just one person doing it. I'll unprotect shortly... almost off the main page anyway. --W.marsh 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do unprotect, please watch to see what happens. This person obviously is no longer going through the main page to get to the article to vandalize it. There may no longer be a connection betweeen the main page and the vandalism.--Paul 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this to be a problem more as of late. It also seems the number of sprotected pages is going up, and the admins are having more trouble dealing with backlogs (e.g., #CAT:CSD or [12]). Perhaps we should review a policy of making the FA protections to be discouraged, rather than forbidden. I think Glen hit the nail on the head on this one - how many readers clicked on San Fran and saw "dick sucking" whatever, and were turned away from this encyclopedia? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Sandy's concerns about having Tourette syndrome on the main page... If you don't want it on the main page, that's entirely understandable. Though, I have noticed that MP featured article vandalism is at a peak on weekdays when kids are on the computer at school. Sundays seem like good day for having an article scheduled for the main page, with relatively minimal vandalism. I notice the edit history for Tourette syndrome, there was no vandalism last Sunday. Just a thought. --Aude (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and ideas, Aude, but I'll pass on it - my other concern is that being on the main page would attract long-term, repeat vandals, like SF may have. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Do any admins wish to address the backlog on this page? --Bob 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I made a start, but someone with a bot should chime in to do the orphaning. (Radiant) 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Give me a week and I'll help out.  :-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PUI

I've been working on clearing the backlog at WP:PUI, but there are a couple of contentious issues from Oct. 18 and Oct. 22. Would others mind taking a look at those? Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of AOL ranges per m:Meta:No open proxies

I have blocked the three open proxy ranges of AOL, 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 with anon-only, account creation enabled, for being effectively open proxies. These address can be exploited by anyone by installing and using the now-free AOL software [13] . More information on how AOL distributes IP address through the proxy server is located at Wikipedia:AOL. Anonymous editors on these ranges are encouraged to create an account. Naconkantari 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse this. I think it's kind of a shame but was inevitable. Chick Bowen 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I endorse as well. It's much less effort to create an account than it is to keep up with the ridiculous amount of malicious editing from AOL proxy IP addresses. —[admin] Pathoschild 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment: do you have to use class b's, or would class c's work? further comment: as somebody who worked in aol's netops, i can tell you any traffic you are getting on port 80 from them is through a proxy (or more than one). so trying to block proxies from their space is useless. ... aa:talk 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since you're someone who's worked in aol's netops, can you suggest other useful rangeblocks? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I can't give that kind of information out. I think it would be more productive to find another way to avoid the disruption than to wholesale block users. Do we have any figures for how many users are originating at AOL? What I'm getting at is, we need to determine how many users are affected by such global indiscriminate blocking. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I fully endorse this, being a former AOL user myself. There was some other wiki with a similar policy... where you had to use secure login. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  The English Wiktionary. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, seems reasonable.Voice-of-All 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• (trolling and personal attacks removed) --Dropscone 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Stop trolling. This is your first edit. AOL ranges have been blocked because the software used to access them is now readily accessible on their website, effectively making them open proxies. And that's all there is to it. MER-C 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Someone's going to have to overhaul WP:AOL because of this, and it won't be me. MER-C 12:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I notice that it's only some off the proxies, so if we overhaul AOL, it should indicate this. BTW, this seems like a pretty major decision, I'm surprised we're not getting more opposition. Surely, sometime in about 1 month, a bureaucrat will come across this, take offense, and undo it. Not that I don't support the decision, though... Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I endorse this decision-- what a shame. We're really going to lose a lot of good edits. Alphachimp 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I weakly oppose very weakly oppose this. Softblocking and enabling account creation make this not too bad, but there are people who will be using their regular internet connection (no additional proxies), and will find themselves blocked unless they create an account, which they might not bother doing. See User:69.145.123.171/registering. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC), 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Armedblowfish, this block only affects users of the openly available AOL proxies, not any other IP address range. That prolifically static IP user will not be affected.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  That's their problem. Tell that to AOL. It's time to separate the bad from the good here, and time to make AOL users accountable for their edits. All of AOL might as well be blocked, but be thankful we didn't decide to do that. I'm tired of giving amnesty to something that's not even our fault. Maybe OTRS ought to forward complaints to AOL to see what AOL users and others alike have to put up with every day? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps I misunderstand, Ryūlóng, but aren't these exit node proxies used by both regular AOL users and users who consciously connect to them? As for blocking all of AOL, Pilotguy, if I remember correctly, AOL autoblocks are part of JCarriker's (the founder of Esperanza) reason for leaving Wikipedia... more than once. And of course there's 69.145.123.171's argument. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  MediaWiki has been significantly upgraded so that individual administrators can set whether to trigger autoblocks or not, so such things are no longer an issue. Cowman109^Talk 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, administrators still have no way of knowing whether the user they are blocking is editing through AOL or not. The only way to do that would be to give admins checkuser access, which would of course be a privacy violation for such a use. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  {{unblock-auto}} was created for that reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  See JCarriker. What I'm trying to say is that the (well-intentioned) AOL users' opinions of us are probably low enough already without alienating new (well-intentioned) AOL users trying to edit as anons. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  logged in users probably wont even notice the block.Geni 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be the one to post a somewhat naive question here - and I'm neither supporting nor opposing the decision to block these ranges, just asking a question. How much of a problem have bad edits from these ranges been in reality? I don't mean bad edits from AOL anons in general, I know that's a problem - but are problematic edits from the now-blocked ranges more common than those from any other AOL range? I thought the reason open proxies are blocked is because there's no way to trace edits for purposes such as blocking vandals ... but I thought we were resigned to that situation in the case of AOL anyhow. Is there reason to fear the situation here would be worse than usual? I assume this is a bit of a naive question, as I said, and that the answer is yes or this wouldn't have been done, and I claim no technical expertise, but I'm interested in a little more of the thinking here, if only because I was once an AOL anon and if I hadn't been able to edit for a little while from there I probably wouldn't be here now. Thanks to whoever can clarify a bit. Newyorkbrad 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, AOL only rather recently began to provide this completely free service. Before, someone would get a free CD in the mail, use slow dial-up and would then consume their free hours. Now it can be simply downloaded, used on high-speed, fast-loading connections, and used limitlessly.

I don't know why only these addresses were blocked, there are other AOL proxy addresses that would seem to warrant blocking under the same reason. This is almost all of them, though. Note that AOL client IPs are much less of a problem. Whereas with the proxy IPs every single page request may go to a different proxy, if the person is not using the AOL web browser he is confined to one client IP until he disconnects and re-dials. With the proxy IPs someone can download the AOL software for free, or hook into it with some vandalbot software and their edits will jump around across the range. This happened even when the service was not so free. This does happen, and just like other open proxies are used to circumvent blocks, the same will be done with the free AOL download.

Anyone using AOL is still able to edit Wikipedia by using Internet Explorer or Firefox, not the AOL browser, as those will use the relatively unchanging AOL client IPs, or they can use the SSL connection or change their proxy settings. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that some browsers are more equal than others? ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. When "browser" = "abusive open proxy software", then it's very clear why not all browsers are equal or should be treated equally. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that open proxy software is not inherently "abusive". It is a tool that can be used for various purposes - some abusive, others not. Open proxy software can protect privacy. Even though Wikipedia will not disclose your IP address without good reason, assuming you register for an account, the communications between you and Wikipedia can still be eavesdropped upon. However, since open proxies can also be used for negative purposes, it is reasonable to expect users intentionally using them for privacy reasons to register an account and deal with the autoblocks. As for users unintentionally using them, I don't think I'm part of the majority opinion.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, and well said. I should say instead that, in general, not all HTTP software is the same or should be treated equally. Some of them are begging to be abused (AOL's browser, open proxies), and some don't lend themselves especially to abuse (Firefox et. al.). They're all tools that have good uses and which can be abused. When we can tell what tools are being abused and what aren't, it's reasonable to act on that. Equality of access is an issue, but one that has to be weighed against the harm it can do. We don't give everyone admin tools after all. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the AOL proxies are now open proxies, shouldn't we be disable account creation from these ranges? It would seem that most people who would deliberately use open proxies to hide their IP addresses would also be willing to create accounts if necessary. John254 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also along the same lines, but never announced on WP:AN (only on IRC), I've been preemptively blocking Google Web Accelerator proxies with a link to Wikipedia:Advice to Google Web Accelerator users. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I personally oppose ("strongly" seems appropriate, if redundant) this move. It's abject laziness to not find a more appropriate way to prevent the vandalism. ... aa:talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  And what do you consider more appropriate? We can't somehow modify human behaviour so any change will have to be technical, this seems to give us two options (1) prevent access from ips which are known to be sources of large quanities of vandalism or (2) Pre-validate all edits. Both have downsides. --pgk 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I must agree; it's easy to say "your solution stinks", but it's hard to say "here's a better one." As a vandal-fighter, I can tell you that many countless hours are wasted zapping vandals using public IPs that could be much better spent doing things like contributing to an encyclopedia. Do you have a better solution (an honest question)? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact say "your solution stinks." As an editor and contributor (my feelings on vandal fighting are well known) it isn't my job to come up with a better idea. I think the proposed (or indeed implemented) solution is a bad one, and it would be less harmful to remove the blocks and counter vandalism on a case-by-case basis, rather than block users wholesale. Secondly, as a professional programmer, network admin, and so on, I can tell you that such better solutions do exist. Consider, if you will, the myriad vandal fighting scripts sulking around this project. If those scripts are capable of tagging vandalism for a fingers-and-eyes review, or indeed reversing it (as I see occasionally on my watchlist), then we need only to apply such a solution to these ranges. If we block four class B's, that's over a quarter of a million IP addresses. Solutions therefore exist, and this solution, as I said, is one of abject laziness and/or hostility towards users of the much maligned AOL service.

Continuing, has anyone produced metrics determining how much vandalism is being prevented, and how many positive edits are being prevented? Ironically, during my time at AOL, one of my responsibilities was divining metrics from vast heaps of data. In this case, such vast heaps of data exist (or checkuser would not work), and nobody is putting the data to use by mining it for metrics. Imagine, if you will, AOL making a decision that it would only support users on DSL or faster connections. At the outset, this seems like a good decision. However, with something crucial on the line, such as a revenue stream (or constructive edits from a quarter million IP addresses), it would be foolhardy to unilaterally act without having a firm understanding of what the downstream effects are.

I don't have any personal vendetta against the proponents of this decision, but again, I must call it what it is: abject laziness. If people spent as much time coming up with a solution as they do playing cops-and-robbers, we would have a solution already. Consider the jig. When one discovers a problem that will require repeated, consistent results, one does not simply sigh and resolve to complete the task ad infinitum. Rather, the intelligent person will analyze the problem, find its common points, and build a mechanism for doing the work for them. This way, you wind up watching many automatons doing your work for you, and your bandwidth available for accomplishing said tasks is remarkably improved. For those of you taking notes, it is possible to distill this down to one common adage: work smarter, not harder. Instrumenting such large blocks is quite the opposite: it is not working (as in trevail rather than sufficient) at all. ... aa:talk 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support this move... we've had nothing but repeated problems due to the bizzare setup of AOL proxies. Anything to stop the massive vandalism spree by AOLers is fine by me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongest oppose possible - this is ridiculous. --Ixfd64 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion, so you've essentially said nothing. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This will not prevent abuse by AOL users at all. Vandals will simply create accounts, which will make things even more difficult for us. --Ixfd64 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we should not only block anonymous editing, but also block account creation on the AOL proxies, as we would for any other open proxies. Existing users could continue to edit Wikipedia through the proxies; new users could bypass the proxies, and edit from their own IP addresses, by using an external web browser instead of the browser in the AOL software. We certainly wouldn't be preventing anyone using AOL from editing. Is there some compelling reason not to fully enforce Wikipedia:No open proxies against the AOL proxies? John254 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a new (hypothetical) situation. Somebody from AOL wants to start editing Wikipedia. They can't edit under the blocked IP from AOL. So they go to create an account. They can't since account creation is blocked. So they go to IE or something like that. Problem is, AOL parental controls blocks all external browsers. any ideas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As the AOL page says, they can use the Wikimedia SSL service, or they may be able to change their proxy connections. They could also create an account at school or at a library. —Centrx→talk • 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly, strongly endorse this. Frankly, we should've done it a long time ago. I also concur with John254 on this point and am sorely tempted to reblock with account creation disabled. We don't owe AOL a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Did they ever actually enable the XFF headers after they said they would? —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, they didn't. And if they did, it's not effective for the ranges I blocked. I originally was going to block account-creation, but decided against it after some discussion on IRC. Feel free to reblock with account creation disabled if this would be better. I personally would support blocking account creation. Potential editors can use the SSL service to create an account (provided there isn't a problem server-side with an increase of traffic there) or use a public library or a friend's computer. These three ranges are the ones I have found are the most used through personal experience. Naconkantari 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If I remember correctly, they did, only that our XFF whitelist doesn't have CIDR support. You should probably ask Tim Starling on IRC about this, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • About account creation enabling/blocking - you could compromise and block account creation on some percent of them. This will allow a persistent person trying to register to do so if they are patient enough to wait for their exit proxy to change to one with account creation enabled, but make it harder on anyone who wants to register a large number of accounts. (Note that I am actually opposed to disabling account creation because of the people using these proxies as part of their regular internet connection.) Just a thought, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get Jimbo's say on whether AOL proxies should be blocked. --Ixfd64 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with blocking anon editing, but disabling account creation as well seems to go too far. Most of AOL seem not to be malicious vandals, but the immature and silly kind. (Radiant) 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've directed Jimbo to this discussion. I think that AOL forced our hand on this one so to speak. This isn't just an example of a set of open proxies now but a set of user-friendly open proxies. To allow them would lead to so many different problems even aside from vandalism. I'm normally a strong proponent of letting anons edit but this is way over the line. JoshuaZ 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like this idea. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Quote Jimbo's user page. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • How then are these open proxies any different than other open proxies? JoshuaZ 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A question to challenge the mind! It's easy for me to say "they are" but I'll get back with a more substantial answer soon. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Frankly, the only difference is that more people use them. From a technical standpoint they're the same. Beyond vandalism, we block open proxies because we can't trace edits from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I know they're the same from the technical point of view but I just don't like the idea of locking anyone who uses AOL out. Ultimately what I think doesn't matter. A fact I'm used to. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • But we're not doing that. We're blocking anyone who uses their proxy. Installing Firefox alone gets around that. Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I wonder, do we have any estimate how many productive anon edits we get from AOL? JoshuaZ 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• [14] and [15] sums it up pretty clearly. Naconkantari 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy blasphemy, why does everything we do require Jimbo's approval? Editors with good intentions are regsitering accounts, vandals are being stopped, so feel free to whine and complain about something that's justified and has support, but you are just wasting your time. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Pilotguy. 98% of computers with AOL have another browser (question: if the user can't figure out how to open the other browser, can they figure out how to edit Wikicode properly?); and what's more, they're not blocked from editing - they can register a user account. In the cost/benefit analysis, I believe the encyclopedia has far more to gain by soft-blocking these IP addresses. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Administrators can now edit the block reason at Template:AOLblock. If you do edit it, please keep it as short and simple as possible, and remember that many AOL users don't have a strong understanding of proxies and may believe they are personally targeted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't let Ta bu shi da yu steal the show...

So here it is...

I'm getting married on December 22, so if anyone is around, so anyone around Guadalajara, Jalisco is more than welcomed. -- Drini 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I never thought of giving myself as a Christmas present. Pretty creative. Congratulations :) --Durin 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations to both you and Ta bu shi da yu. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats, Drini. – Chacor 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Do these WikiMarriages happen often? Or is it just this week? --tjstrf talk 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• ¡Felicitaciones! (Congratulations!) May your relationship always be perfect save for one problem, so that you will always have something to improve. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations! - Mailer Diablo 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm I see love is still only a B-class article.Geni 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• W00t! Congratulations! --Ixfd64 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulaciones! Khoikhoi 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations Drini! Best of luck in the married life. =) Nishkid64 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• From one soon-to-be married man to another - congrats! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cheers! (Radiant) 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Congrats! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Congrats :)! Alphachimp 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by User: Chowbok

I don't know if this is where I should report this or not. It doesn't seem to fit under personal attacks. Anyway, this editor is deliberately trolling me after I tagged one of his images as having no source specified. He immediately began tagging every image I've uploaded and proiceeded to spam my talk page with notice templates. See my talk page for further details. [16] TheQuandry 06:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok has been doing a substantial amount of image work lately; one way to identify problematic images is to browse through a user's upload log; sometimes the user whose upload log jumps out is someone you've recently interacted with; I don't think that speculating about motivation is ever fruitful in these sort of cases. Having a bunch of their images tagged can be frustrating for the user in question, and the timing in this particular case may be less than fortunate in that regard, but looking at the images in question quickly, most seem to have been tagged reasonably. Sebbeng, I understand that this can be frustrating, but please try to just deal with each case on its merits. --Robth^Talk 06:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

CAT:CSD is overflowing, and overcrowded. Someone care to remedy this? Viridae^Talk 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopping to it. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I took care of some, but it's past 2:15am... sleep approaching... -- tariqabjotu 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau and other users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article. There is no restriction on making suggestions or participating in discussions on talk pages. Jean-Thierry Boisseau is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. Any bans imposed under this decision may be enforced by blocking the offender for a period of up to a week. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Irresponsible administrators

Administrators who choose to enforce some sort of policy have an obligation to:

1. Learn why policy was not being followed in the first place, and

2. Follow up as to the consequences of their actions.

I am referring, of course, to the situation with the featured article for November 17, San Francisco, California. The page was subject to repeated, automated attacks from a vandal who replaced the body of the page with a homophobic vulgarity, "HOME TO DICKSUCKING FAGGOTS WORLDWIDE". Amid the chaos engendered by the attack, the page was semi-protected. On more than one occasion, another administrator invoked the rule that the day's FA should not be protected and unprotected the page. With the protection removed, the attacks almost immediately recommenced. The administrator who unprotected the page, however, did not hang around to reprotect the page once the attacks had recommenced, leaving it to some other admin.

I would suggest that an administrator who chooses to enforce any policy has an obligation to act responsibly and learn why the policy was not being followed in the first place and then to ensure that there have been no unintended consequences of their actions. I would also suggest that failure to act responsibility in this manner should have consequences.--DaveOinSF 06:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Consequences such as what? He made a mistake; let's not run him into the ground over it. -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It should all be factored in when (and if) an administrator's performance is evaluated.--DaveOinSF 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor suggestion here, not questioning your overall judgment which was imo good, but did you consider putting a detailed comment explaining exactly why the page was semi-protected? I've checked the history and it doesn't look like it. Exceptional cases require exceptional measures, but exceptional measures usually need exceptionally clear explanations. --tjstrf talk 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you've checked the page history, it should be abundantly clear why the page was protected. Look at the complete page history for the past day.--DaveOinSF 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things come to mind here: Hanlon's razor and the adage "Nobody reads the manual" (in this case, the page history). There's nothing to indicate malicious intent on the part of the other admin, just human error. Also remember that everyone interpets things differently from the same evidence, so you cannot assume people will see why you decided to ignore the rules at a simple glance. Especially since policies exist because they will make sense in 98 cases out of 100.

If an editor sees you do something which directly contradicts policy, and you have not made it transparently clear why this one case needs to be an exception, the other editor should not be faulted for bringing things back into accordance with policy. While they should assume you are not gratuitously trying to undermine the law, they needn't assume you are right either.

Bottom line: we can't censure an administrator for failing to predict the future. He unprotected the front page, and more vandalism occurred as a result, but censuring him for it makes as little sense as censuring you if it had been unprotected and no more vandalism had occurred as a result. You both acted using your own judgment, neither of you communicated as well as you could have, and at least one of you had to be wrong. Failing to predict the future is not a crime. --tjstrf talk 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Failing to predict the future is of course not a crime. But being disinterested in the consequences of your actions is irresponsible.

The admin who unprotects the page has an obligation to hang out at the page and see what happens. If the admin is not prepared to do that, he/she should find a separate admin who is.--DaveOinSF 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I am not an admin, so the choice to protect or not to was not mine. And I'm not talking about a single admin here. This happened at least twice with two separate admins, plus a third who, rather than helping, posted a patronizing message on the talk page about why we should just live with the vandalism for the time being.--DaveOinSF 08:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this episode provides ample food for administrator thought.

1. As argued above, the dogma that we use unprotected FA main page articles to attract new editors should be re-evaluated. I haven't done the work, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of IP and new-user vandal and revert edits far outnumbers the positive edits from IP and new user accounts. I'd guess the ratio is on the order of 100 to 1 and it is probably higher. Why does Wikipedia cling to a dogma of openness that needlessly eats up the time of its most dedicated and talented editors?

2. I'd argue that this can be applied to most FA-class articles. FA articles are supposed to be of a sufficiently high quality that only prose improvements are needed. Yet, examination of the history logs for any number of popular FA articles will see a constant war between the vandals and the vigilant. Why aren't FA articles semi-protected as a matter of course to free up thousands of editing hours that could be spent getting more FA articles? Vandals don't put graffiti on already graffiti-laden walls; they are attracted to pristine walls. As more and more quality articles are added the fight against the vandals may eventually reach a stand-off where there is are so many articles needing defense, that reverting vandalism is a full-time job.--Paul 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, before accusations of admin incompetence are thrown around, remember that at least two official policies (User:Raul654/protection and the Semi-protection policy) specifically instruct admins to not protect articles featured on the main page, and to leave them protected for the shortest amount of time possible. The relevant policy reads, "It has been suggested many times in the past that the featured article should thus be protected or semi-protected. However, administrators are advised never to protect this page and to only semi-protect it under certain extreme conditions." I see you disagree with the policy, by your comments on that talk page; however, this is the modus operandi we have been following for years, so it is not fair to call administrators "irresponsible" for doing what they're told to do. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"I was just following orders" huh? I do think admins should at least try to make a show of helping out if they unprotect, rather than just leaving the article to the wolves and those suckers who do RC patrol. Sure it might have been fine in 2004 to just cut and run but we see much more vandalism now, and more coordinated, article-threatening vandalism... despite what policy and userpage essays say, it still feels like a slap in the face when an admin unprotects an article and runs away from it, requiring editors of the article to refresh every 30 seconds if they want the article not to be vandalized for long. Yes protection periods of the FA should be short and only in response to extreme cases of vandalism, but admins who unprotect should still try to show some comraderie with the people spending their time defending the article. It shouldn't be required, it should just be common courtesy. --W.marsh 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But at the same time, shit happens. In my experience, most admins who unprotect Main Page articles do stick around to make sure nothing happens for a period of time; however, what I'm objecting strongly is the characterization that we have to watch an article or face sanctions. So, let's say, I unprotect an article, but then someone knocks on the door and starts selling me Girl Scout cookies, and I can't get rid of the person until 20 minutes later, when she accomplishes her purpose of selling me an over-priced box. During that period, I'm away from the computer, and the article is vandalized. Should I be demonized for things that were beyond my control to begin with? Some of the changes to the proposed policy appear to give the appearance that such an outcome is desired. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of a (minor, IMHO change to the policy is now ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. John Broughton | Talk 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be silly to try to require it, but I think such situations where you are unexpectedly interrupted are the exception rather than the rule. Admins should actively try to show the people maintaining the articles that we're all on the same side here, otherwise those people might not keep maintaining the quality of those articles. It's just a matter of maintaining a healthy and productive environment. --W.marsh 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to maintain a degree of openness to allow new editors to begin to contribute; excessive use of page protections on articles would discourage new editors, thereby causing the number of Wikipedia contributors to slowly decrease as editors left the project. That being said, there is a certain level of vandalism at which interests in maintaining the integrity of a particular article outweigh the loss of openness created by semi-protection, even if the article is the day's featured article. In rare circumstances, articles such as Roger Needham that suffer from severe vandalism even after semi-protection are fully protected as a vandalism control measure. In light of the competing interests in allowing legitimate contributions by new editors to the day's featured article, and in preventing vandalism to such a high profile article from being displayed, I propose that the MediaWiki software be modified to implement a new vandalism control measure for the featured article as an alternative to page protection. When a non-administrator edits the day's featured article, the edit wouldn't be displayed immediately. Instead, administrator(s) monitoring the article would immediately be shown the diff produced by the edit, and would have a short period of time (approximately ten seconds) during which to either approve the edit, allowing it to be displayed immediately thereafter, or to reject the edit, thereby reverting the edit before it is ever displayed. Edits neither approved nor rejected during the prescribed period of time would be displayed in the live version of the article by default. Although edits rejected in this manner would never appear as the current version of the article, they would be retained in the page history and in the contributions history of the editors making them. The use of a real-time edit approval process -- which is quite practical for a single, heavily watched article -- would avoid the edit conflicts and/or forking that would be caused by delayed edit approval. John254 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask Brion to code stable versions. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"JFK" vandalism

It might be a good idea to watch new user logs for anyone using "JFK" in their name - I've been chasing a vandal around for the last hour or so who's gone by User:JFK truth seeker and User:JFK crusader; after the first was blocked, the second cropped up and continued along in the path of the first. It hasn't been blocked as of yet, but has been reported. This one seems persistent. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)

There is debate on the talk page about how to name (and disambiguate) articles on settlements. Should we use our standard to disambiguate only when necessary? Should all cities by default have a qualifier (e.g. state name) attached? Should we make an exception for cities in the USA? Should it be "City, state" or "City (state)"? Since the issue is a deadlock between four or five editors, some feedback on this issue would be nice (and I'm asking it here because this board sees more long-term users than the village pump). (Radiant) 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if only we could use these tags

[17] - David Gerard 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

lol at that shitty local band one. -- Steel 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical :) (and some of them very spot on!) --Durin 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The author must be a dedicated user. Shitty local bands rule! – ClockworkSoul 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this very much, spot on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect David being an editor at cracked.com! -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I agree with the band tag! (aeropagitica) 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the "little sister" one, but the local band and the "GPA over 1.7" is nice. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty damn funny. What'd be great would be to actually whip them up in user space as a reference to the Cracked article. :-) (→Netscott) 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The band one is very nice. The little sister one is a little disturbing. Exactly how old is the sister in question and what jurisdiction are we in. IANAL but I presume she would need to be 18 or 19 for it to be legal to upload to Wikipedia. Oh, and it should specify that it isn't necessary if she's not good looking. The JoshuaZster doesn't have time for the fuglies (ok, for some reason it isn't happy wikilinking but that should be linking to number 338 of that webcomic fixed -S). JoshuaZ 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked the protected tag. Hbdragon88 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That band one was right on the spot - maybe the author is a newpage patroller. Perhaps it will make a good April Fool's joke when inserted into {{db-band}}. MER-C 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia do April Fools Jokes (e.g., google style?) I would be all for that... without the swearing. And with a caveat. In that case, I say go for the sprotect as well, and even the GPA 1.7 (if we can keep it nice). The sprotect might be case-in-point of WP:BEANS, but a little humor could only help things once in a while. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Jokes have been tried. Why do you think a significant number of the more seniour admins have no sense of humor?Geni 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, we do that a lot. For instance, 127.0.0.1 is a common vandal, AFD has been a featured article, and we've been infiltrated by those upstarts at Britannica. There was an attempt to legislate against this kind of humor, but it pretty much fell flat. (Radiant) 09:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:207.63.100.166

A mixture of good and vandal edits. IP resolves to "The Illinois Century Network (ICN) is a telecommunications backbone providing high speed access to data, video, and audio communication in schools and libraries, at colleges and universities, to public libraries and museums, and for local government and state agencies.". Can someone look into contribs and tag/warn user appropiately. exolon 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, Gwernol 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - was going to tag as a blatant vandal, but a look at the contrib history said otherwise. 84.64.75.86 17:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

Wikipedia administrator User:NMChico24 has tagged a phrase used for an article redirect for immediate deletion. I had just created the article. NMChico's deletion maneuver seems premature. I had just created it for a redirect and seconds later he moved to delete it. Ten minutes have elapsed and he has not replied to my message to him. This is cavalier to (1) immediately act to delete stubs and then (2) not reply to pleas to be patient and allow the phrase to be posted. Administrators abuse their power when they do not dialog with persons that are targeted by them.Dogru144 18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not even an admin. And, the problem's been resolved, from what I see on both your talk pages.. User:Logical2u/24.89.197.136 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC). (uncivil comment removed)

Two bad faith efforts

There's currently a thread going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of good faith by user Shamir1 about users asking for unprotection in a dispute, though it wasn't over, in order to get their version reinstated (at least one was apparently successful). This seems like a severe breach of good faith to me - is there any procedure for this? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion passed for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

A motion has been passed for the case linked above.

The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How to confirm sockpuppeting?

I just blocked Sonicnukleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on reasonable suspicion of being a sockpuppet of Dataice (talk · contribs) (see the sock account's Talk page for details). There are several other possible sockpuppet accounts of this user due to some suspicious SPAs surrounding the Salisbury Mall article, The Centre at Salisbury article, and the latter's AfD and multiple subsequent recreations. (Note that the former and latter articles are not the same, which is why the former hasn't been speedied as a repost.)

However, the categories for valid checkuser requests at WP:RFCU don't seem to apply. The SPAs didn't affect the outcome of the AfD and they're not disruptive except for the reposts. The problem is mostly that they are all editing the same set of articles and passing themselves off as multiple editors in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus. The instructions at RFCU indicate that obvious, disruptive socks should just be banned on the judgement of the admin wanting to request a checkuser, but this doesn't seem strongly supported by our blocking policy. Any advice on this, and such situations in general? Mostly I'm thrown off by the recent changes in the CU process and the gap that leaves between what's blockable by an individual admin's judgement and what needs CU. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

Could we get a few more people to watchlist this. Two users (User:Mitsos and User:Spylab) just each got blocked for about 17RR each. Hopefully 24H from now it won't happen again, but it might. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As well as the two above, I also blocked User:SandyDancer, for the same offence (though I'm not sure it got up to 17 reverts). Another to look out for. Martinp23 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I count 8RR for that user over the same period. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they're going to reconcile their differences after they come back from 3RR blocks, so I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image for speedy deletion Question

I went through the criteria for Speedy Delete for images and could not find anything that specifically covers instances of possible child pornography. I did mark the following as db with this reason; but believe that a new criteria should be made ASAP so that images such as this are deleted post haste. A response from an admin on how i would go about requesting that new category be added would be greatly appreciated. SkierRMH,01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [18]

Leave a message at WT:CSD to promote disussion, though realistically, one could just tag the image {{db}}. Martinp23 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a new criteria: common sense is sufficient. --Carnildo 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Speedy deleting child porn has been the practice for some time; whether or not it has been written policy it has been discussed here previously with a broad consensus that this is the appropriate action. -- Infrogmation 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but WP:BEANS applies here too. "Please don't upload child pornography" would probably do more harm than good. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That being said, perhaps an admin would like to indef-ban the person who uploaded the content. I think this would be a minimal punishment, in view of the fact that (as it looks to me) it's federal law to report the offender [19]. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a drawing, and thus the law in question is not (so far as I know) applicable. Chick Bowen 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of American law, but in Canada it's unlawful to have pornographic representations of youth, including illustrations. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Blockign the user seems uneccessary to me. IANAL but as I understand it such drawings are not illegal. JoshuaZ 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography#Simulated (laws differ per country): UK, Netherlands, Canada = big no no. Germany, US = OK. Go figure. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so as I see it the servers are in Florida so it isn't an issue in that regard. Its probably best to keep the images off of Wikipedia to prevent problems with other countries and such but blocking still seems uncalled for. JoshuaZ 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart's link deals with simulated pornography such as adults posing as minors; this was just a drawing, and it showed no acts. No judge in the US would consider it legally child pornography; it was only mildly worse than the image at Lolicon. I don't disagree with its deletion, since it was borderline, but I'm with JoshuaZ on this one--AGF etc. Chick Bowen 06:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that, I'm going to ublock and give the user a warning. JoshuaZ 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I just personally wish people made up their minds about things like this. Yall said block, and when I did it, yall complained. What gives? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The bitch of an adhocracy is that the verdict depends on who happens to be around at the moment. Consistency is not Wikipedia's strong point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• We might want to add a line to WP:CSD to reflect this (since by the initial question here, some people apparently don't know this). Then again, per WP:BEANS we might not. (Radiant) 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually having thought about this some more we probably should not do that, because if it's vandalism we already delete it for that reason, and if it's borderline or unclear it by definition cannot be a CSD. (Radiant) 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Penguinizer

My userpage is continusally getting vandalized by User:Penguinizer. He got indef blocked, but then he came back as User:Penguinizer2, which is still active and continues to vandalize my userpage. I don't wanna really protect my userpage, but is there any other way to end this? Karrmann 02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just report to WP:AIV as a sockpuppet with an explanation; if it continues, and you wish, just ask your page to be protected; otherwise, just keep reverting it. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Infamous index.php spam bot

Should pages created by this spam bot be deleted and protected? I have seen many which had been protected, and many others that had not. I hadn't done so, but I would agree with full protection, as these pages are only used by these bots. Any objection? Here is an extremely quick search for some of these pages. -- ReyBrujo 06:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, what's up with this? Any history to read? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's using Wikipedia to up the Google rank of some prescription-meds website. Can't you just block the creation of any "index.php" subpage articles, or set up a bot to delete them? - Hahnchen 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a bot that creates pages ending with /. Angela stated in her blog that it is a malfunctioning bot. A pity it is extremely hard to catch them because of our limited search capabilities. In example, see here for a common pattern of these created pages. It would be interesting to have a category for these pages, too. -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

These pages aren't actually of much use to the advertiser, they're in pages that aren't normally scraped by Wikipedia mirrors. But still, they're a nuisance. I've taken a look at one of the page histories and it shows multiple IPs "contributing", and has some idea of what edit summaries to use to get around RC patrol. What IPs are they, open proxies or just dynamic AOL style IPs that we can't block? Maybe you should give a heads up to the New Page patrollers for them to keep an eye out for new pages at impossible locations. - Hahnchen 16:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to list them at WP:OP. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, each IP only spams once or twice then moves on. Usually such IPs have never edited before. I maintain a page which provides search terms for spambots, as well as spammy and useless userpages. MER-C 04:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Un)Semi protection backlog

I've noticed that the number of semi protected articles has grown to over 600 (Category:Semi-protected has more than 3 pages with 200 entries each page). I think that some of these might have been semi-ed and then forgotten about. E.g. Computer was semi-ed more than one week ago (11th Nov) as is Continental drift (1th Nov) and Failure (30th Oct). There could be a significant portion which fall into this forgotten about status since this I tried six articles at random and they all look like long-term semi for no reason (for reference, the others were China, Animal Farm and Automobile). I know that chashing un-semis is not as satisifying as squashing a vandal, but I would like to make a request for some admins to do a mop and bucket spring clean of the semi-prot category so wikipedia can really be the encylopedia 'anyone can edit'. novacatz 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I encourage admins to be responsible and watchlist articles they unprotect, and contribute to dealing with vandalism on those articles. --W.marsh 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thirding this, I just went through the "J"s and found several articles that had been semiprotected for over a month for what appears to be routine vandalism, as well as many more articles as described by novacatz. A few more people chipping away at Category:Semi-protected would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither Animal Farm nor Failure appear on WP:PP for some reason (just to take two that have been mentioned, there's probably more). VoABot should automatically list them on there. -- Steel 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a feature request for Special:Protectedpages? (Radiant) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free stamp images

There is a huge number of orphaned non-free stamp images at Category:Fair use stamp images. Note that, a lot of them were formerly being used as replacements for portraits in biography article under the claim of fair use, which actually is not allowed under Fair use criteria.

So, what do we do with these orphaned non-free images? Some, especially those from India, are in violation of the copyright terms of India Post, which allows ONLY black and white reproductions of it's stamps ONLY in philatelic articles. So, I think we should remove these copyvio images immediately. I request assitance in deletion of the non-free stamps images. Thanks. --Ragib 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag the orphaned ones with {{subst:orfud}} and they'll disappear within a week. As for the Indian ones, we have fair use on our side. MER-C 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil?

On Talk:Mulatto, 216.27.165.170 (contribs) made this edit [20] saying that mulattoes should dominate the media and such, which I'm sure constitutes trolling and should be removed from the page. User:The hobgoblin (contribs) left a response saying that the "mulatto movement" is based on denigrating blacks, that the existance of mulattoes promotes "race mixing", which black men will take advantage of to get into bed with white women, etc. This edit struck me as a borderline personal attack, and doing nothing but "adding to the flames". I removed both edits from the page, and left a message on hobgoblin's talk page saying that his edit violated WP:CIVIL. He reverted my edit on Talk:Mulatto and told me not to delete his personal opinion[21].

He's entitled to his opinion, but is this an appropriate way to express it? How would you handle this? - JScott06 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They are discussing the subject rather than the content of the article. This happened on the talk page of Same-sex marriage in South Africa recently. Whether you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed, editors have no right to express it on the talk page. Removing commentary and slapping a {{talkheader}} on the top of the page with personal warnings to those involved should be all you need. I would warn the user again, remove his WP:SOAPBOX again, and give him a short block if he is persistent.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some more edits to this effect. Hopefully that will settle the issue.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Template for long term edit wars

I was thinking about creating {{edit war}}, a template to be put in article talk pages that categorizes articles in Category:Articles subject to long term edit wars or similar, a category where people who like solving conflicts can interact. However, I would also like administrators to drop by and check the articles, as users could be abusing the system. As examples, Natalie Merchant has been in a long term edit war since at least April 2006, with users adding sourced information about her marriage, and IPs removing it, Holly Marie Combs (nowadays semi-protected), where users added and removed details about her second child, or My Story (Ayumi Hamasaki album) (between many other Japanese albums), where users edit the names to fit the different Manual of Style guidelines, while IPs and new registered users change it back to the album caption (in example, changing My Story with MY STORY because the album cover is in uppercase). Anyone else thinking this is a good idea? Also, what to do with these users who revert one or twice per week, through months (as I said, Natalie Merchant has been reverted for over 7 months by now), dismissing achieved consensus? -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation at Natalie Merchant annoys me after looking at the edit history and talk page. Why hasn't a single warning even been handed out to the anon that keeps removing information without explanation? On the talk page it is unclear whether consensus is that the information should be included or not. I'd recommend sprotecting that article ASAP and 3RR/vandalism blocks be handed out to the anons who keep removing sourced info. VegaDark 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this might be better served by an RFC (or possibly, one of the various forms of mediation). We have several conflict resolution systems in place, and I am somewhat averse to creating another place where conflicts can be listed. (Radiant) 09:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthout.org protection

Truthout.org has been protected for more than three months because of legal issues (and at the top of the list at WP:PP#Full protection for quite a while). The problem is that the only connection to these legal issues appears to be Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) who has apparently left the project. Can an update be posted to Talk:Truthout.org? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Kelly Martin (via IRC) this should be forwarded on to User:Brad Patrick. --W.marsh 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel St. John

This page needs to be protected from re-creation, which has occurred twice. Also... as an admin I would do it myself, but I don't know how... when a page is deleted it no longer has a "protect" tab, so how's it done, thanks (maybe protect and then delete?) Herostratus 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You add the {{deleted}} template and then protect the newly created (non-)article. --W.marsh 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are we doing that? It keeps being recreated by the same user - just block him/her. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unless there is evidence of vandalism or other nastiness, I'm not in favor of blocking a user that posts a bit of self-promotion. I believe that if we don't "bite" this user but point xem to some indication of what is good content for an encyclopedia, we could turn this person into a good contributor instead of chasing xem off. (besides, if the user is truly bent on adding this article, this is far better stopped by protection than by a block which can be evaded through sockpuppetry). I urge Wknight to overturn his block. (Radiant) 08:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked her per your request but I strongly disagree with it. If she posted the article twice or even thrice and showed any inclination towards contributing constructively, I'd agree. But Rachel St. John and Rachel St. john have been posted six times, including once by a sockpuppet (which means this may be a moot point) and four different people have been to her user talk page, all in barely 36 hours, and all while nothing else has come from this account. We routinely indefblock accounts which are so clearly here for disruptive nonsense so she's lucky I went so light. (BTW, if I read the blocked users page correctly, she was autoblocked which means she was probably trying to recreate a seventh time, eighth time, ninth time, ...) I don't see why we should bother with WP:SALT to protect such a user. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shock site

Hey -- can some other kind souls out there please add this page to your watchlist? People are constantly adding their favorite sites without sources, and I feel like I'm the only one watching, and my life is just about to become much more busy. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 04:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I second this, it's an absolute magnet for crap off Teh Internets. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Added it to my watchlist... (not an admin, but a revert's a revert) Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... followed a link to Max Hardcore, which seems to have been vandalised (the birthdates don't match betw the info box and the article, and he's described as a 'blue eyed negro' (sic) weighing 90 lbs in the infobox). TTTT I'm not interested enough to bother looking thru to find when it was done and how it should be reverted. Article also seems to need a bunch of tags but I'm too lazy to add those either. Anchoress 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a block (on yourself)

Some organizations NAT outgoing connections to appear from a single IP and have users who vandalize Wikipedia with some regularity. Is there any policy in place to allow those organizations to request a permanent block on anonymous editing from the IP addresses for which they're responsible? If so, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to it. If not, could such a thing be done? Furthermore, if such a thing were to be done, where would the IP addresses be listed?

Thanks! - Jonathan 07:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been done for schools in past. Clearly we need some verification that it is someone responsible rather than just someone trying to be "clever", so I believe they were emailed in originating from an official email account. --pgk 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The folks at WP:ABUSE and m:OTRS-en have been involved with this sort of thing at the past, you might want to check with them. FreplySpang 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Request indefinite block of vandalism-only account

User:Phlap000 has only made two edits, both of which were vandalism. link, link. The latter was vandalism to Jimbo's Wikipedia article, and the edit summary was intentionally misleading: Minor spelling corrections, reverted vandalism when Phlap000 was actually vandalizing the article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 08:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV, and follow instructions there for warning the user first. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've reported many vandals to AIV before, but I thought as this account was vandalism-only, it might have merited a block. Also, AntiVandal Bot beat me to it, otherwise I would have given a bv warning. Thanks! –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How close to copyvio?

How close to the original does a text have to be in order to be copyvio? Stir of Echoes has a synopsis that is almost word for word the same as the IMDb synopsis, but a couple of words in each sentence seems to have been changed ('over' changed to 'because of' etc). Does this make it OK? Anchoress 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I removed it. —Centrx→talk • 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

user:tevus, Don King and BLP concerns

I stumbled across the Don King article a couple of days ago. It was, quite frankly, a BLP nightmare with many negative unsourced statements. Not having time to go through the article myself and come up with sources for everything, I reduced the article to a single sentence so that properly sourced information could be re-added to the article. Tevus reverted my edit, restoring all of the negative material. I cautioned him on his user talk page that such action was unacceptable, but he is of the opinion that page blanking of any kind is vandalism and should be reverted on sight. He has stated that he would be willing to listen to an admin's opinion on the matter, so it would probably be a good idea for someone to comment on his talk page before he happens to restore such material in the future and inadvertantly violate BLP policy. Thanks, Mexcellent 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the unsourced negativity has been removed, and I would suggest restubbing this further until reliable citations can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tevus has stated that he considers that to be vandalism and that he will revert it, so you might want to leave him a note on his talk page about it. He has stated that he will listen to an admin. Thanks, Mexcellent 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The index.php spam bot Part 2

Another index.php spambot has been creating pages (however, some won't show up in the contributions, as they were all deleted by
FreplySpang (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). The offending IP address is 85.234.150.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

The IP's blocked for 1 month, but it looks like we need to be more vigilant for pages created by IP addresses with /w/index.php in them. If an admin could salt them that would be appreciated. --SunStar Net 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much point in salting these pages, as they seem to be random talk pages. It is probably a good idea to watch out for funny items in the talk namespaces at Special:Newpages, though. Kusma (討論) 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma. I don't see any reason (yet, anyway) to expect this spambot to come back to the same pages. Digging through my deletion log, it looks like the only spam pages from that particular IP were User talk:FreplySpang/index.php and User talk:JoanneB/index.php. Oh look, no, on November 19 he also added User talk:GraemeL/w/index.php and User talk:SunStar Net/w/User talk:SunStar Net/w/index.php. Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked him that time, but his deletion log doesn't show any other pages that this IP creat....wait a minute. Since when can anonymous IP users create new pages?

Edits that this IP has made to its user page show that it is a backslashing proxy. I'll mention it at WP:OP. FreplySpang 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous can create pages in the talk namespace (including User and Wikipedia). They can't just create articles. -- ReyBrujo 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Learn something new every day. Also, it appears that User:Drubbles and User:66.226.79.49 are related - they all focused on the same small group of spamlinks. FreplySpang 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube Links discussion (N^2)

A handful of editors and myself have been removing links from Wikipedia to the YouTube website. I think we’ve hit about 2000 or so articles so far.

A user has raised concern that the project doesn’t have enough "admin" oversight. (see my linklist talk page) The user in question is concerned with our methods. Basically what I’m doing (and I can’t speak for the other users) is running AWB with a find/replace function. For each link that comes up I look at the context of the link. If suspect its copyvio (music videos are the most often) I remove the link. If the context implies some reliability (Band’s profiles mostly) I leave the link. After that I keep an eye on my contributions list. If (Top) drops off the list I go see why. If I was reverted I look deeper into the situation, review the movie and make a comment on the talk page. Fortunately, (outside of the previously mentioned editor) happened only a half-dozen times that I’m aware of.

_{(I’ve been dancing around mentioning the user’s name, and I’m not really sure why. The user is Cindery.)}

I have encouraged Cindery to open a RFC (with a promises also to sign it), but Cindery politely refused... So I’m bringing the discussion here. I’d like to verify that I’m acting with the support of the community I had previously assumed I had. (I based that assumption on a post on WP:RS, a post here on WP:AN and several conversations on #wikipedia) ---J.S (t|c) 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. No issues. Carry on. JoshuaZ 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree (but I'm not an admin so who cares). There is too much to be reviewed to make it possible to do this without deleting the odd valid link here and there. As long as we are not saying that every link should go forever and are carefully considering them if restored this should be OK. Spartaz 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since one of the members of the "YouTube project" is Dmcdevit, an arbitrator, I'd say you're covered. Thatcher131 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"But I'm not an admin so who cares" - Actually, admins don't get extra consideration over us commoners. :P

I intentionally didn't want to mention Dmcdevit... didn't want to bias anyone's evaluation. (Let me coin a new phrase... "respect bias" :)) ---J.S (t|c) 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They do not make barnstars big and shiny enough to reward such heroic work. Carry on and may the face of Jimbo ever shine upon your edits. 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Crzrussian inappropriate edit war and revert on Israeli Apartheid

According to Wikipedia: "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary." Why is Crzrussian, an administrator, abusing admn powers without presenting any discussion? Can someone please review? thanks.Kiyosaki 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best cource of action is to politely notify the user of his/her error on his/her talk page. ---J.S (t|c) 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did do that.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate version: why is Kiyosaki, clearly well aware of policy, engaging in POV-pushing? [22]. Note that Crzrussian is not the only person to revert these tendentious edits. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please review the edits/discusson in more detail, you will find that is not accurate. This was a revert of new contributions to the article that can be directly sourced, and as the lead stands its highly POV and needs some balancing with more facts about allegations, not endless Criticism. Please see the Discussion revolving around Heribert Adam, that is what Crzrussian rolled back without even reviewing. You have the entirely wrong issue under consideration regarding the Admn. revert. Please review again.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, given that you've been reverted on this article by 10 different editors in the past week alone, and during that period been blocked 3 times for 3RR there, perhaps you should examine the possibility that the problem lies with you. Since you appear to have a great deal of difficulty editing within policy, I would recommend proposing all changes on the Talk: page there first. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are quite controversial yourself, I'e been told. Please address the issue regarding the inappropriate use of admn. rollback without discussion, not personal attacks. You have an odd habit of not addressing issues put to you. Please address the Crzrussian edit war rollback.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of that text is to say, "if you're reverting, let the person know why." It's to avoid simply reverting the page without giving a reason. However, Kiyosaki, Crzrussian probably assumed (and he would be correct) that you knew the reason he was reverting you, because it had been spelt out before. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is not what happened. He didn't let anyone know why. This was a brand new edit that he reverted without looking at it. He didn't tell anyone why and rollback to edit war, not handle spam. Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth I did I quick can of Crzrussian's last 100 edits and only saw 3 vandal reverts. 2 were legit and one was of himself. I don't think it's fair to categorize this as "ongoing abuse" ---J.S (t|c) 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Who called it ongoing? I didn't. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki has been editing disruptively at Allegations of Israeli apartheid since he arrived on October 22 as User:Kyosaki, [23] and one of his first edits was to warn someone about 3RR, so he seems not to be a new user. What's wrong with his edits has been explained many times, so using rollback is appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is disruptive! I guess it depends on who is calling the other names and making personal attacks. SlimVirgin, kindly stop making personal attacks. You accused me also of violating WP:NOR and I read through that, and now ask you to prove your accusation. Come already, you have harassed me from Day 1 and my talk page proves it. SlimVirgin, doesn't support WP:RS on that article unless it's Criticism.Kiyosaki 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Nobody has focused on the rollback edit, and it's easy to see why. It was not correct and it violated WP:RS. Study it anyone, I ask and plead for someone else to do so. Thanks. Let's focus on editing, not personal attacks.Kiyosaki 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And how many "new users" can look at an edit summary and figure out that it was made using the admin rollback tool.? Kla'quot 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Search "revert" and you get to: Help:Reverting right away, Help:Reverting. Itsays "Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor, with an automatic edit summary of "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y," which marks the edit as "minor."" From what I read Crzrussian's revert violates almost every "Don't" and it wasn't "Minor" Please someone who is not a part of the war, kindly look at this. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

Is that fair use image appropriate not only for that article but also for the Main Page? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a free image could be found, it's a white house dinner, so some goverment images should have been taken. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a White House Correspondents dinner. I don't think it's at the White House, and regardless I don't think the White House will be releasing any images of Stephen Colbert. This is a still image of a television broadcast; the fair use for this is rather strong. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at the White House: "The dinner and awards ceremony in the Washington Hilton ballroom honored..."[24]. This is a press affair. The people taking pictures are doing so for commercial media companies. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Users Blocked

All users in Dublin, Ireland are now blocked. I tried to edit, but had to log in. Why? Greyduck2 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the message you get? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say this is my guess. CSCWEM really should not have blocked a /16 (65536 ip addresses, even if anon only) Prodego ^talk 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. Prodego ^talk 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Location of DCBOCES Proxy Servers and Related Schools

DCBOCES is a BOCES organization that provides resources useful to schools, such an internet access. DCBOCES (Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services) supports the following school districts:

• Arlington
• Beacon
• Dover
• Hyde Park
• Millbrook
• Pawling
• Pine Plains
• Poughkeepsie
• Red Hook
• Spackenkill
• Wappingers
• Webutuck

While each individual school has its own LAN network connecting computers therein, they have no proxy servers connecting the network with the internet. Nonetheless, each school is connected (by means of a WAN) to the DCBOCES servers in Poughkeepsie, where data is sent from the outside world to schools participating in BOCES. Basically, contacting the above school districts (since the students therein vandalize Wikipedia a lot) is pointless because several schools may be using one IP address in sequence, and exactly from which school the vandalism came is occasionally hard to track.

This is just so that this issue might be understood somewhat better. There's really nothing I can do about it, besides dissuade my fellow students from vandalizing. Nonetheless, if an admin wishes to contact DCBOCES about this issue (and encourage them not to block Wikipedia as a solution), that would be ideal, so that people would waste less time on Dutchess County vandalism, and concentrate on... other vandalism. (Although schools should be careful not to WP:BEANS their students.)

Pages relevant are User talk:207.241.244.1, User talk:207.241.242.1, User talk:207.241.243.20, and in general 207.241.240.0 - 207.241.255.255. See Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York) and Union Vale Middle School; the former has much vandalism. Thank you for reading, and I hope that you can take relevant action (if needed). Gracenotes ^T § 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in WP:ABUSE. MER-C 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Countering vote spamming at CFD

I'm wondering what the best way of handling "vote spamming" at xFD. After proposing categories for deletion, I noticed that a user had contacted four other people with messages like this. Two of those contacted have "voted" as requested. Two others have not been on-line since the message has been left. My first impulse was to counter the arguments, which I did with one person who had already "voted" and another who had not. But this seems to make me just as guilty of spamming. I left a message with the spammer, and I also thought of removing the vote spams. I notice that Wikipedia:Vote stacking is inactive and did not become policy, so what is the policy? More important, what would be the best way to respond in a situation like this? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 04:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Spam. Vote stacking is a disruptive form of gaming the system, so if he does it again, block him. (Radiant) 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else get this troll email

LISTEN HERE I DON'T KNOW WHY I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED I HAVE NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS PEOPLE GO ON MY COMPUTER AND START SCREWING THINGS AROUND AND THEY WERE MESSING AROUND WITH YOUR PAGE I WORK WITH A VERY LARGE INTERNET COMPANY AND YOU HAVE THE FUCKING NERVE TO BLOCK ME LISTEN I WILL MAKE SURE NOTHING BAD HAPPENS TO YOUR WEBAPGE IF YOU UNBLOCK ME AND I WILL TAKE TIME OUT OF MY VERY FUCKING BUSY SCEDHULE TO HEPL TRACK DOWN ON VANDALISM I AM VERY PISSED OFF RIGHT NOW I WANT SOME FUCKING ANSWERS HERE OR I WILL RAISE HELL!!!

FROM A VERY PISSED OF MAN

Oswald King !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Total trolling, a vandalblocked account. Anyone get this email too... -- Tawker 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In light of this letter, I'd say he's completely penitent, and would be a valid contributer to Wikipedia. Granted, his only contributions were changes to articles to say "COCK-SUCKING MOTHER FUCKER", but, as he said, it was an unjust block (note subtle sarcasm). Seriously, if he's got an issue with the fact that his page was deleted, then he can grow up and take it up in a manner that doesn't involve threats. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

But if we don't unblock him something bad might happen to our webpage! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking if he's unblocked he might set up us the bomb. (→Netscott) 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lulz, guys! Wikipedia is seriouzz buzeeness. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A new form of linkspam

User:80.227.102.46 is posting linkspam in edit summaries! Please roll back all contribs. I don't have a rollback button and I'm only now going to put the warning on his page, so I can't post at WP:AVI. Zora 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree they're at least intending to be disruptive. Though one has to wonder how effective they'll be. They're not actually hyperlinked, so I don't know if Google will pick them up. And I doubt many humans are going to cut-n-paste the URLs. --Interiot 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cristina Odone

There has been an appeal here from Edward Lucas, Odone's husband for a neutral editor to review the article, I'm sure any input would be appreciated. Catchpole 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Snsudharsan (talk · contribs)

Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) has vandalized the page of Sudharsansn (talk · contribs), and by uploading his photo without Sudharsansn's consent, with the title of Ponnaya [25], which is an offensive term in Shinhala, meaning impotent. He/she is also trying to make confusion by creating a user page almost identical to the latter, who is contributing to Wikipedia constructively for quite a while. --16^T 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Was indef-blocked last night I believe. – Chacor 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, [26] about 21 hours ago the user was blocked. Metros232 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocked user was determined to be a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k RaveenS 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also check [[User:Sl 1986, User:Wiki man2 User:Kaushini, IP: 222.165.175.139 and User:Rukshan also as sock puppets of User:Lahiru_k as they were used to stack votes in a previous AFD and a current TFD. ThanksRaveenS 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I would also kindly request the admins to check is User:Kerr_Avon is also a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k because the profile has been active only since the initiation of the TfD w.r.to the Template deletion of the State Spondored terrorism article. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable fair use images

This one is starting to develop a serious backlog. It's slow work to clean out, so a few more eyes on this would be nice. Even if you are not comfortable dealing with the whole "promo photo of (semi)famous person" issue there are still a lot of "slam dunk" cases like photos of buildings, cars and "everyday items". Just remember to check the article to make sure the image is used in a "replacable" way (identify the subject rater than commentary on the work itself, subject is not itself copyrighted, subject still exist etc.), check for any reasonable objections on the talk page and finaly remove the image from the article (if you delete it). As I said quite a bit of work compared to no-source or orphanded fair use images and such, but if "everyone" processed at least a couple of images a day we should be eable to keep it under controll. --Sherool (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all contributions?

An IP address has contacted me at my talk page and asked me to delete an entire contribution history.[27] Do we do this? Durova^Charge! 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Depends on what they are. Usually not. If there are libelous contributions those might get deleted/oversighted, otherwise I'd say not. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the contribution history, this appears to be a lot of work, with no real reason. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion templates

Over at WP:RFI we've got an IP address whose sole participation at Wikipedia has been to add deletion templates to articles. As an IP this editor can't complete the process so there are 20 or so articles that have been tagged without explanation.[28] Investigations have me busy - could someone lend a mop with the AFD side of this? Durova^Charge! 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin out of control (edit stalking/unrealistic copyright requests)

I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user.

The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

• Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles [29].
• Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph [30]. In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Wikipedia[31].
• Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involoved with [32]. Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game [33]. I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with
• Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page [34]. I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
• Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Wikipedia for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame [35]. He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user". I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)