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 Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use 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 opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Tasks

Wikipedia:Cleaning department

This seems to have falled into desuetude; I organized it a bit and added a whole bunch of things (CfD, TfD, etc) to bring it somewhat up-to-date. I then went through this page (and the archives), and added all the things listed here. (I was tempted to copy signups from here to that page, but I thought I'd better let people sign up on their own steam! :-) Anyway, if people could go look at it, and i) add things I missed, and ii) sign up for things (especially if you are already doing them, so we know what's covered, and what's not), that woule be great. Thanks! Noel (talk) 22:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requested Moves (WP:RM)

I know there is an endless list of tasks for the admins to do but I'd just like to make note that WP:RM is starting to build up a bit of a backlog. I usually do the moves but can't right now because the servers are running too slowly for me. Would be good if anyone could take a look and do a couple. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 16:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC

Copyvio

172.143.49.166 (talk · contribs) has been having a good time creating lots of copyvio articles. I fixed some of them but I just don't have the time to fixt he rest of the them right now. He/She has changed some of the text in some of the articles but most of the text is till copied and pasted. Would some one else finish this up so I can return to real woorld work? BrokenSegue 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:VIP

I just happened to notice that WP:VIP has gotten huge. Can someone take a look at this, and clean out some of the dead wood? Thanks! Noel (talk) 13:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General

Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion

A new guide for VFD is being written. I highly recommend that all administrators review this guide -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources

I've made a new proposed policy. Not sure if I'm going about it the right way. Anyway, it's Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. I recommend all admins view this as if it gets approved it's going to make admining and content disputes a lot more easy to resolve. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page move bugs

Somehow, Mikkalai's move of List of English words of Russian origin to Words of Russian derivation caused all of the editing history to be lost except for the most recent edit, mine. Contrary to what the history now says, I am not the sole contributor to that article. Is there any way to fix this? Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

• Try asking a developer, this is their area and not admin stuff. I guess they should be able to restore the history from a backup copy of the database if neccesary. Thue | talk 13:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll look for a Wikipedia:Developers' noticeboard ... Uncle G 13:49, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
    • That would be http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ . Thue | talk 19:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What happened is the page was first moved to Words of Russian origin, and then moved again to Words of Russian derivation, but the history stayed at Words of Russian origin, where it was inaccessable because there was no page with that name. I moved the page back to Words of Russian origin to pick up the lost history, and it worked! Goplat 15:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More page move bugs

Numanuma moved to Numa Numa with loss of history. Also, what links to Numa Numa looks weird now. Mikkalai 01:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hm, looks fine to me. Also, it is at Numa numa now. When I fixed a copy/paste move yesterday, I noticed that page histories do not seem to update immediately after a move. (When I deleted a page, moved the original there, and then checked the history, I got shown the history of the deleted page.) It only updated to the history of the moved page when I switched from "last 50" to "last 100" changes. Can it be that this whole business with histories being left behind is just a caching issue? Lupo 07:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Several times, doing a history merge, I have noticed a wierd bug, which may be related. I delete X-new, move X-old to X-new, and then undelete X-new, and the undelete succeeds. But then the history doesn't show the X-old versions, just the X-new ones! Waiting (I tried up to half an hour on one article), and/or flushing the cache with "&action=flush" doesn't help. However, make a gratuitous edit, and all of a sudden the old versions appear! (I guess I really ought to file a bug report about this, too busy, though...) Noel (talk) 15:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be some sort of "cached copy of the history not getting updated properly". I have now seen the same sort of behaviour Lupo mentioned - when the history after a restore isn't what you expect, select one of the other history lengths, and it shows up correct. Making a gratuitous edit brings the history back correctly too. Sounds like it's correct in the master database, but history copies cached in various places aren't getting updated correctly. Doing any one of a number of things causes the caches copies of the history to be flushed, and the master (which is correct) to be looked at. Will definitely have to file a bug report on this (if someone else hasn't done so already). Noel (talk) 02:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh wierd - this bug is provoked not just by undeletes, but in other circumstances too. Check out this version of the history, and compare it with this version. Notice the two missing versions in there? All I did was a save (albeit while the system was loaded). Wierd.... Noel (talk) 20:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to have editing this page since then, so the wierdness is no longer visible. But at one point the "normal" history link was missing the two most recent non-current versons (i.e. the two ones before the then-current version). Noel (talk) 20:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another history missing

Okay, so I'm a new admin as of late yesterday. I got a request from a user I've worked with to undo a page move for W.A.C. Bennett. The page was moved to a longer, less common name (William Andrew Cecil Bennett), and the user could not move it back because the shorter name had two items in the edit history. After a little bit of looking around for policies/procedures, it seemed to me that the resolution would be to do a delete on the requested destination and then move from the longer name to the shorter name. The delete worked without incident, but then I guess I tried to do the move a little too soon because I got the usual conflict message. After a few seconds, I was able to do the move, but the edit history doesn't seem to be there from the page's longer name. The longer name's history only shows my move. Did I miss a step? AdThanksVance. slambo 16:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

So either someone fixed the history or it was just a server cache that needed purging, but the history appears to be in the correct place now. slambo 18:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move repair holding pen

There is currently a problem with deleting older articles, which sometimes makes it impossible to fix cut and paste moves.

I have created Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen as a place to hold articles waiting for this problem to be fixed (so their histories can be merged). (I debated created a category for them as well, but decided not too - there no good reason I can think of for gunking up their histories.)

I have linked to it from Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves; if there's anyplace else it should be linked from, please do so.

If you run across more of these situations, please add them to the list there. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's another list of pending history merges at Wikipedia:Requested moves#History mergers. You might want to merge the two lists and update the instructions at the top of WP:RM accordingly. Gdr 18:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the tip. Will do. Noel (talk) 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a place for non-admins to report cut and paste moves so that histories can be merged? I'm assuming that the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen is just for moves where the block compression bug is an issue. The recent move of Stain (biology) to Staining (biology) is what brought this to my attention, but it might be a good idea to provide general instructions for non-admins on Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and/or Wikipedia:Requested moves. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of "already in Wiktionary" articles

In a laudable effort to clean up Category:Move to Wiktionary, a number of articles have been marked with the speedy deletion tags. However, some of these articles have long since expanded beyond dictionary entries (e.g. realm, a type 1 disambiguation article currently listed in CAT:CSD for being "in Wiktionary") and in others the transwikification process simply wasn't done properly, and speedily deleting the article will render the edit history (required for transwikification) inaccessible. I urge any administrators on speedy deletion patrol to be cautious about deleting these articles, and to hold off deleting them until things are sorted out at Category talk:Move to Wiktionary. Uncle G 19:01, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Comment on categorization

Your feedback is requested on a bold proposal to make categorization more stable and consistent, at Wikipedia:Categorization policy. Specifically, the idea is to disallow normal users from adding or renaming categories, and instead work from a 'request new category' page to ensure all categories are consistent in name and organization. Radiant_* 13:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

query about blocked users

Do they see the "you have new messages" notice?Geni 10:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would you like someone to block you so you can find out? :-) (Momentarily, of course! :-) Noel (talk) 14:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, blocked users see the notice. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:32, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote

For those of you who haven't seen this yet, I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote (and also wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals) and remind you to put your voice in there so we can get the whole amendment thing over with. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:33, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship

Please weigh in on your opinions regarding this proposed procedure for de-Adminning. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Revert bug?

I noticed lately that when I try to revert back more than one edit (say, when two acts of vandalism occur back to back), that my automated revert will only go back back one revision (example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stony_Brook_University&action=history. On 00:33 21 Mar 2005 I tried to revert to the last edit by 68.195.88.148, and failed). Has anybody seen this, or am I out of my mind? – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you think the rollback button has AI? How would it know you wanted to rollback to 68.195.88.148 and not to 205.188.116.70? silsor 05:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify. Not by the rollback button. It was so that when I would compare two revisions, I would click the rollback link and the later revision would be reverted to the earlier revision. This no longer seems to be so. Rather, it will revert the the earliest revision that is not by me. Sorry about the confusion. – ClockworkSoul 05:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The rollback link removes all changes by the last person to edit the page. silsor 06:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to do that before; it forces you to do a manual rv on that kind of vandalism. It'd be a great feature to have (I think), why make a request in [bugzilla.wikipedia.org bugzilla]? -Frazzydee|✍ 01:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, meant http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org, it can be so picky sometimes :P -Frazzydee|✍ 23:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rollback failed

While trying to roll back several edits made by a vandal, I ran into this situation:

Rollback failed

There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again.

Any idea why this is happening? RickK 07:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're not using AOL, are you? --Carnildo 08:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I am.  :) RickK 21:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

That could explain it, then. AOL's system of using random transparent proxies in a very large IP space for all connections to the Internet breaks most anti-session-hijacking measures, in a way unfavorable to honest users. --Carnildo 21:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I get this too, from time to time, and I'm on cable. I assumed that it was a database burp, like the others that I regularly get during high-traffic periods. – ClockworkSoul 23:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I get these occasionally too, and I also use cable. Tuf-Kat 05:06, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking IP after user is blocked... a problem

Hello. User:Gumba gumba was blocked indefinitely, as "all edits vandalism". He had been blocked earlier for 24 hours and came right back. However, he seems to be using a shared IP, so the username should be blocked, but not the underlying IP.

According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, the thing to do is wait for an "autoblocked because you share an IP" notice to appear at Special:Ipblocklist and then unblock that. However, I've done that half a dozen times now (see Special:Log/block, and new autoblock notices keep appearing. Does this work as advertised?

Can someone look into this? Unfortunately I have to step away from the computer soon. -- Curps 22:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought IP autoblocks expired after 24 hours anyway, even if the user account was blocked indefinitely? Lupo 22:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this user is using a shared proxy IP. Waiting 24 hours is really not an option. User:Tony Sidaway and I unblocked about ten IP autoblocks over nearly 45 minutes, but they just kept coming, and finally had to unblock User:Gumba gumba. Imagine that, an unblockable non-anonymous vandal. The software leaves much to be desired. -- Curps 23:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His IP gets auto-blocked for 24 hours every time he logs in, so blocking him and then unblocking the auto-block works, unless he keeps trying to edit under User:Gumba gumba, as each time he does that the IP gets auto-blocked again. --Weyes 23:12, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

So a vandal user on an ISP that uses shared proxy IPs can carry out a denial of service attack against fellow Wikipedia users on that same ISP, just by repeatedly trying to edit under their own username? That's insane. Why can't we just block a username without blocking an IP, and why wasn't that a feature from DAY ONE? -- Curps 23:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was there at day one, but at a certain point auto-blocking was introduced, and getting that up and running was deemed more important than making it optional. Ask for someone to hack up a fix at wikitech-l, and in the meantime advise those who are affected to disable the proxy in their browser settings, or, if it's a transparent proxy and cannot be disabled, to use one of the many available public proxies. --Weyes 00:34, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

The problem would disappear as soon as Bug 550 would find a developer to implement. andy 15:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block conflict question

Pardon my ignorance; I am a relatively new administrator and a couple times another administrator and I blocked the same person without realizing the other had already blocked him. How long will the block last? I can't find this anywhere although I thought I saw something about shorter blocks, but it was on a talk page somewhere. One of us blocked for 24 hours, the other one indefinitely. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The newer block replaces the old one. So whatever block length you put down is the block length that will be used. I had the same question a couple of weeks ago. BrokenSegue 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Apparently someone told me the wrong information. BrokenSegue 05:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a related question. When dealing with a user account set up to vandalize (and which has made no or virtually no regular edits), what is the usual period to block for? Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism says up to one month for static IP addresses. Does that also refer to user accounts, or can these be blocked indefinitely? SlimVirgin 02:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay. SlimVirgin 03:12, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

According to User:Tim Starling in #mediawiki, and as confirmed by a bit of testing I did (as you may have noticed in the block log), the shortest block is the one which takes effect, and not the oldest or newest. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 05:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking myself was something I hadn't considered trying; nice idea. Thanks, Dan. So then my next question is: suppose an administrator blocks someone indefinitely, and I then block the same person for 24 hours (SlimVirgin and I blocked the same person during the same minute). I check the log and see that she was first—how do we restore the indefinite block? Do I unblock the user and then reblock indefinitely? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you do. Don't forget to mention the reblock in the reason field. This is exactly why I check the block log before blocking someone. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a feature idea: first, put a "Block" tab near the "Delete" tab (in the default layout) for admins viewing User pages. Second, when you click the tab, you automatically see that user's complete block history. Good idea? dbenbenn | talk 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korath implemented this idea at User:Korath/blockip.js, which needs to go in User:USERNAME/monobook.js. dbenbenn | talk 19:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Wow, this is exactly what I needed. Thanks for pointing it out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Account Block

Account: BurnInBlue

Reason: Public Account

Proof: Username == Password

Proof2: The creation of this message. I hereby assert that I am *NOT* the creator of this account... however I am using it to prove that the account has (or at least had) public access.

BurnInBlue 04:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Password changed, thanks for reporting. silsor 04:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

If the real owner of this account would like to step forward they can have it back, with a good password of course. Funny how you knew it was a public account when it had never made a contribution. silsor 05:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know it is a public account because i found it on bugmenot.com, which is a well knoiwn public account distributer... indeed that is the purpose of said site.. to distribute public accounts for various websites... 69.68.36.55 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also I have checked all Accounts listed from bugmenot.com at this time, none worked except this one.. because this is a wiki and thus there is no *valid* use for a public account it may be advisable to request removal of *.wikipedia.org; *.wiktionary.org, etc from bugmenot... 69.68.36.55 05:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sent such a request. 69.68.36.55 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, we do block all bugmenot accounts when we find them. As far as I know they ignore all requests to stop hosting public account information for Wikipedia sites. silsor 05:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

That is funny becaue according to BugMeNot: "BugMeNot also willingly removes accounts for any web site that requests that they do not provide accounts for non-registered users." 69.68.36.55 05:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I sent BugMeNot an e-mail, and they say they've stopped supplying accounts for any of the Wikimedia projects. They were very friendly about it, and complimented the project, so that should make the public account problem a little better. Snowspinner 17:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to block public accounts, which clutters up the block list. Instead, just change the E-mail and password in the account preferences, you don't even need to be an admin to do so. --Weyes 13:23, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. Such accounts are easily abused by vandals. Simply change the password and lay low. I certainly support preventive blocking in this case. Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have some misunderstanding here. I'm arguing for disabling public accounts, but for doing so by changing the password instead of through blocking. Blocking means the account will clutter up the block list for all eternity, which in the long run doesn't scale. Changing the password prevents use of the account too, but without cluttering up the block list. --Weyes 14:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Well done! Unknown public accounts are a big security hole for our Wikipedia society. Wikipedians must find them all asap! We, the known public accounts, in order to help wikipedia community to escape from the unknown public accounts curse, we are declaring that we join the admins, the arbitrators, the private accounts and the anonymousIP accounts in their fight against unknown public accounts. We are going to find them all and burn them to fire! Agasias 17:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Database error

I want to let you know of a database error that is happening when users submit edits at the exact same time. When Marxx was speedy deleted at the exact same time I marked it as VFD, the database started to incorrectly list that I first created it. Zzyzx11 18:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That isn't an error. The page was deleted, and a few moments later you recreated it. I suppose we could fix this problem with a magic token that tells the system "I'm not creating a new page, just modifying it, so just ignore this edit if the page isn't there!" dbenbenn | talk 18:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's a feature ;) I've had some problems with that too...I've given a couple people messages about creating a test page, and they always get so confused because they never created it. If it got speedied before, then you can just {{db|reincarnation}} it (unless of course it wasn't a real speedy). -Frazzydee|✍ 20:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy-deleting "hoaxes"

A reminder to all admins to use extra care when speedy deleting. There have been incidents recently where an anon has repeatedly inappropriately nominated a page for speedy deletion as a "hoax" (which is not one of the speedy criteria in any case), ignoring all suggestions to take it to VfD, and has actually succeeded in getting it deleted twice. The page in question does not in fact appear to be a hoax at all (a minor musical genre with an odd name). Remember to check page history. -- Curps 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration notice - RK

The case relating to User:RK is now closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2#Final decision for the full decision - which includes a revert restriction and a personal attack parole. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block question

What happens if you enter "User:xxx" instead of "xxx" in the block field? This came up twice today. After User:Snowspinner blocked User:Irate, User:Inter unblocked him. User:Geni then blocked the nonexistent User:User:Irate, who was later unblocked by User:Kim Bruning. Can someone create a username like User:User:xxx? How are such blocks treated? Earlier today, User:Refdoc reported blocking User:Jesus H. Christ III for an inappropriate user name. I looked at his talk page, then checked the block history which came up empty. I wasn't sure what happened, so I blocked him indefinitely. Checking the block log, I saw that User:Refdoc had blocked User:User:Jesus H. Christ III. I thought this was a mistake, a block of a nonexistent user, but saw that a little later there were two autoblocks deriving from this block. Does the software treat blocks of "User:xxx" and "User:User:xxx" the same? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't tested it, but apparently the software only really "looks" at the part after the last colon, to get the username. See User:Raul654/archive#Test_anomaly. The link to the user's contributions points to the right place, so it seems the correct user is affected, not a non-existent user. SWAdair | Talk 06:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Too bad the "User:User:" blocks don't show up in the block log if you just put "User:xxx" in the field but I shouldn't complain. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Can someone create a username like User:User:xxx?" Nope. I just tried, and it complained that the user name was invalid. Because of this, MediaWiki should either

1. Give an error if you try to block User:User:xxx, or
2. Treat it as a block of User:xxx.

Someone ought to file a bug report in Bugzilla. dbenbenn | talk 16:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. So it looks like MediaWiki treats a block of User:User:xxx as a block of User:xxx. It will show up in the block log and IP block list as a block of User:User:xxx, a broken (red) link regardless if the user has actually created a user page. Also, if one wants to see all the blocks for User:xxx and puts that in the field, the blocks for User:User:xxx won't show up. That's my understanding. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think you've got it. One workaround is to view the block log at 500 entries per page and then use your browser's search function to search on the username itself (for instance, search for SWAdair instead of User:SWAdair). That will catch all instances of that username, whether it is preceeded by User: or User:User: SWAdair | Talk 09:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The China Syndrome

There is a dispute on the naming of certain China-related articles that has gotten entirely out of hand. Basically, there seems to be a naming consensus (involving User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Huaiwei and User:Jguk, and possibly others), and one person intent on overthrowing it - User:Instantnood. I've seen this ongoing debate all over WikiPedia the last couple of days, even if I'm not doing anything China-related.

Even if all of it seems to be done in good faith, throwing up the same discussion in dozens of places feels like it crosses the line for WP:POINT. Both an RfC and an RfAr have been filed for the matter; it would seem appropriate to postpone all these similar discussions pending the outcome of those request. Maybe some China-related mod could look into it and kindly ask the participants to stop dragging their debate all over the Wiki? Radiant_* 22:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Category talk:Category talk:Laws of mainland China (and copy/pasted in a dozen other cats [1])
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board
• VfD:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV/China_or_PRC_vs._mainland_China
• CfD:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hong Kong-related categories with only one article
• RfC:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood
• RfAr:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood

There is now a new and clearer RfAr pending, posted by Snowspinner. Thanks for putting an end to this so-called chaos. Radiant_* 18:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

I've just received the following two e-mails:

62.255.64.9 has been autoblocked due to your block:

'Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gumba Gumba power". The reason given for Gumba Gumba power's block is: "new account of blocked user, vandalising Holocaust denial".'

The IP is not listed in the BlockList, so I cannot discover when the block expires.

This is a transparent proxy provided by my ISP that I cannot bypass. Please advise how I should continue to edit Wikipedia.

Matt

---

Apparently my IP has been blocked from editing on Wikipedia.

However,

a) The banned IP in question is 62.255.64.9. My IP, however, is 80.7.169.132. That said, I am house-sharing with others, which may have caused this confusion.

b) I did not attempt to edit other articles prior to me being informed of the ban. The user name "Gumba Gumba Power" is completely alien to me. I certainly did not do anything which I feel would warrant me being banned from editing articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time.

Michael Z.

I've checked the IP addresses' contributions: 80.7.169.132 (talk · contributions) has no edits listed, ever, and 62.255.64.9 (talk · contributions) has been used to make edits this evening, so appears not to be blocked at all. Is someone trying it on, or am I missing something? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the list of Blocked IPs and in fact, there's a notice on the IP's talk page that says i belongs to NTL. I'd tell them to try to edit again... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I posted the above, one of the people (Matt) replied to say that he'd checked again, and hasn't come back to me, so I suppose that that's OK. As far as the other one goes, my reply to him bounced, and I suspect that he wasn't on the level. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration notice - Baku Ibne, et al.

This case is now closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al.#Final decision for the full decision - which includes a revert restriction and a personal attack parole on User talk:Rovoam. Please also see WP:AER for a request to indefinitely block various all sockpuppet accounts of LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou/etc. I haven't checked the block log, but I think most will have already been done) Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following the conclusion of this case, Rovoam went on an attack and vandalism spree on 11 April and has been blocked by User:Rdsmith4 for a very long time on grounds of Vandalism; belligerence; unwillingness to cooperate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox problems?

I got a request for admin help, but I'm a newbie-enough admin not to know quite how to handle it:

There has been users just dump over 140k of stuff into the Sandbox. I am thinking just one person is doing it, yet he takes on many personas (perhaps sock puppets). Can you watch the Sandbox and see what is going on please?.

Anyone able to help, please? Grutness|^hello? 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The requester has sent a bit more info: Much of the dumped material seems to be either to do with Fonzie from Happy Days or deroatory comments about gays. What's more, the following header was found in the sandbox:

<You go girl! We politely ask you to leave the line above alone during Easter Mass. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 6 hours. The sandbox is indeed a nice place to play! Let's add our junk and nonsense in here and create the nastiest place on Wikipedia! Let's go!>

Sounds like a vandalised sandbox... Grutness|^hello? 02:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - GRider

Another closed case folks. User:GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 19:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii

This user, Agwiii (talk · contributions), is becoming a nightmare. He has been accusing SqueakBox (talk · contributions) of harrassing and 'cyberstalking' him, has made legal threats against SqueakBox, has posted his accusations and threats – together with large chunks of Florida statutes(!) – to User pages and Vandalism in progress, and yet has failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of it. On his own account, however, he has removed a VfD notice from an article he started (Ron Branson [2]), and has struck out one of SqueakBox's comments on Talk:Abortion [3]. he really needs to be dealt with quickly, as things are getting worse, but I'm not clear that he's done anything that warrants a block, and he won't listen to the various editors who have tried to get him to stop and to calm down. Any thoughts? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If mediation has been tried, I would suggest placing a general RfC on his behaviour or more appropriate, contact the mediation commitee and add the dispute on their pages. Inter\^Echo 22:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since agwiii and squeakbox have both edited each others' comments, I think they should each be warned once and then blocked for disruption if they continue. Rhobite 22:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's now becoming rather more complicated. This user refuses to discuss anything with anybody. He has posted the following text to his talk page: "If you are a member of the "good old boys clique, don't contact me.", and he deletes anything that anybody posts there. He might accept mediation, but I fear that he may be simply too far gone. – ClockworkSoul 22:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true that SqueakBox deleted one of Agwiii's comments, but it was part of the revert of Agwiii's tampering with SqueakBox's comment. I also think that it would be unfair to treat them in the same way, as SqueakBox is rather more the victim in all this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me he is disrupting himself (and his case) by deleting anything posted on his talk page. Recommend 24 hour block to cool off. Inter\^Echo 22:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, your lack of objectivity and neutrality is the final straw. To think that Squeakbox is the victim is the equivalent of making O.J. Simpson the victim of Nicole Brown. I am deleting everything I wrote here, and as soon as I find out how to delete my account, IT'S GONE! Signed Agwiii 22:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Older username

I believe that Agwiii (talk · contributions) and RexJudicata (talk · contributions) are the same person. See [4] and [5] and [6]. --cesarb 22:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and this shows the beginning of the history; looks like he started as a POV pusher on the Abortion article. SqueakBox (talk · contributions) starts reverting him, and he gets more and more agressive with each reversion. --cesarb 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very clever, cesarb. Looks like you're probably right. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had reached the same conclusion about the 2 accounts on Friday but didn't say anything because I was only having trouble with Agwiii. After his POV looking edits at Abortion I decided to check his other contribs which is what he meant by cyberstalking, --SqueakBox 00:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Both Rex and Agwiii appear to have voted here, --SqueakBox 00:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

It appears that RexJudicata (talk · contribs) created Agwiii (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [7] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously Squeakbox, I would take this sort of thing to WP:RfC. This is way beyond "admin intervention required" and concerns everybody, not just the admins. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benes decrees

someone copypaste moved Benes decrees to Beneš decrees. The new title is not acceptable as it contains a char not is iso-8859-1 (a lot of browsers treat iso-8859-1 as windows-1252 so the char is shown). can an admin please merge the history of the two versions and put the page back at the old name. Plugwash 00:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, since the histories can't be merged for now. dbenbenn | talk 22:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate WikiProjects ?

Some WikiProjects are said by some users to be inappropriate (possibly because of POV-pushing, or being a personal attack magnet). Is it possible for a WikiProject to be inappropriate? If so, what are the criteria, and how do we decide? What should we do with said projects?

Please join the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

Radiant_* 11:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

My regular IP address has been blocked falsely - I am not "banned"

Please see this item on the block log:

"03:23, 7 Apr 2005, Neutrality blocked 216.153.214.94 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Banned user Rex disruptively editing from a (static) IP address. If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username.)".

Without getting into the details of the many run-ins I've had with Neutrality, I'll just point out that his rationale for blocking me appears to be false. I am not a "banned user".

Also, regardless of whether or not Neutrality thinks I ought to use the "Rex" account of Rex071404, the fact is that the Wiki does not require that I log in. That being the case and since it's clear to various Admins who 216.153.214.94 is, I see no logic of any kind in Neutrality's indefinate block of me.

Also, Neutrality has shown himself to be rather blind to the ramifications of his block against me - as evidenced by his self-contradictory position. One one hand, he blocks my IP address yet, on the other he says "If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username". This is nonsense. Neutrality certainly knows (or at least ought to know) that if .94 is blocked by IP address, I cannot edit from that address, logged in or not.

I am asking that my IP address of 216.153.214.94 be unblocked.

FYI: This log-in and edit performed from alternative IP address because I was unable to log-in via 216.153.214.94

Rex071404 17:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) is indeed not banned (obviously), and I could find no evidence of his editing "obstructively" from the 216.153.214.94 (talk · contribs) address (though Neutrality (talk · contribs) was heavily involved in what amounted to an edit war with him on John Kerry. I've unblocked the address, at least until there's some explanation of what was indeed a self-contradictory reason for the original block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he wants to edit constructively, he can do so under his regular username. My IP block has had the desired effect of forcing Rex to use his username. He must be accountable to the community at large, and especially the Arbitration Committee. And I had no "edit war" with Rex at John Kerry. Rex vandalized the page, in violation of Arbitration rulings, and many users (including myself) rolled back/reverted his changes. I find it frankly disappointing that an admin would immediately unblock the IP address of a known problem user—the subject of three Arbitration cases—without consulting the blocking admin first. It is especially disheartening that the user in question is able to edit anyway under the Rex username. Neutrality^talk 05:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please notice that Neutrality is missing the point. His blocking rationale was indeed falsely premised and self-contradictory. I edit from 216.153.214.94 and Neutrality certainly knows this. If that IP address is blocked, I cannot edit from it regardless of whether I log in or not. When one is "blocked" via IP address block, log-in or not, no editing can be done from that IP address. Also, please take notice that at Rex071404 and 216.153.214.94 I have left copious details for all editors and admins to make plain how to contact me. I've given up trying to reason with Neutrality. He never replies to any of the talk page comments I leave for him. In fact, those comments which I leave on his personal talk page, he deletes. Rex071404 06:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Neutrality stated that Rex071404 was banned when he wasn't, but I'm to blame, because I didn't realise that Neutrality didn't mean what he said, and so I should have asked him what he really meant. Have I got that right? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem user or not, as long as he is allowed to edit an article he is allowed to edit the article under any IP he wishes. And if the IP is used by him exclusively and has a note who he is, I don't see any reason why that IP should be blocked at all. If he disobeys any remedies from his ArbCom cases though he should of course be penalized for that, regardless under which name or IP he edits. Just my two cents. --Conti|✉ 10:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's self-imposed block

Rex071404 has imposed a block on himself; see statement at his userpage. I've chosen to enforce this self-exile by imposing a six month block of his IP address and user name. Should I be doing this? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:56, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Of course not. He should not be obligated to serve out any self-imposed sentence. Everyking 23:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as policy is concerned no. Personaly I don't see any point. If he can keep to his self imposed block then that would appear to be a pretty good declaration of good faith. If not deal with it in the normal arbcom way. By blocking him you invalidate the whole gesture.Geni 23:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since it looks to me like part of the motivation for a self-imposed sentence was to take one at half the length of the likely arbcom imposed sentence, I'd say go ahead and block. Snowspinner 23:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Did he ask you to block him? -> Policy: No; Morally: It's probably alright. If not, then I would say definitely no. You shouldn't use your sysop powers to enforce somebody's self-imposed ban. Like all other users who have gone on a wikibreak or have left completely, Rex should be left to handle this himself. Also, if he later decides to come back, he shouldn't be prevented by technical means. You're effectively forcing him to fulfill this ban on himself. IIRC, sysops aren't even supposed to block themselves, so blocking somebody else would be completely out of line. But all this is IMHO of course. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is he still blocked? Do I have to be the one to undo it? Everyking 20:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless he has committed a blockable offense, like repeated vandalism or violating an ArbCom ruling that calls for blocking, I don't believe he should be blocked. Certainly not for simply stating he won't be editing for this time. Is there any other reason to block him? Otherwise, Grunt, I think you should unblock him. This block appears to be inappropriate to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Rex. I believe that it is an inappropriate block and against policy: "self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited." Although the policy says that self-blocking is prohibited, I think that we can infer that it would also be prohibited for a sysop to block another user. But even if not, the blocking policy also says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support." AFAIK, blocking other users to enforce a ban is neither sanctioned in the blocking policy nor does it have widespread community support. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this all changes if he violated an arbcom injunction or did something else that warrants a 6-month block, but there seems to be no indication of this. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Grunt should not have blocked him. He did not ask to be blocked, you had no reason to block him, and even if the ArbCom imposed a block they aren't supposed to carry it out themselves (correct me if I'm wrong here). --Duk 19:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki speedy deletions

Did we ever decide what to do with these? I looked up ASAP today and found it was pending deletion. Checking the history, it looks like it was nominated early for transwikiing to Wiktionary, then improved a bit, transwikied, and marked for speedy deletion. As I understand it, transwikiing is not a criterion for speedy deletion; they are supposed to go through VfD like other articles. Am I mistaken? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I believe you're right. Since I had been active in deleting the transwikied articles I've started going through Category:Pending deletions looking for others like ASAP that were marked Pending but haven't yet been through VfD. I'll be away for the next couple of days but the partial list I've compiled is at User:SWAdair/Pending Transwikied. It looks like these will have to be sent through VfD. SWAdair | Talk 06:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The last step at meta:transwiki is to delete the left-behind version of the article. Unlike regular deletion, transwiki does not destroy history - the article can always be recovered in the same form from the alternate wikiproject. Therefore, it is considered a reversible decision. If I transwiki an article to Wiktionary and it turns out to be controversial, the next editor (whether he/she is an admin or not) can bring the article back. Since anyone can reverse the decision, I believe that neither VfD nor the speedy deletion criteria need to apply. The article has not been deleted from MediaWiki. It has merely been moved within MediaWiki. Now like any other pagemove, if you suspect that it might be controversial, it is simple courtesy to discuss it first. That might involve a VfD nomination for discussion by the community but it's not required. The decision to nominate or not is one we've traditionally left to the discretion of the admin cleaning up that last step in the transwiki process. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is what I thought, and indeed what I was acting upon until the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deletion_at_the_end_of_transwiki made me pause. The continued discussion at m:Talk:transwiki still seems unsure, with some good points on both sides of the issue. Has that discussion been carried on elsewhere and settled definitively? IANAL, and I've not read the statutes, so I will defer to the judgement of those who have the time and knowledge to sift through the fine print. With the issue apparently not yet determined to a large degree one way or the other, I'm unsure of exactly what the requirements are. I understand your viewpoint (above) and was acting on that belief in the past. Now... I dunno. SWAdair | Talk 09:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I started the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deletion_at_the_end_of_transwiki to try to gain "official" recognition of the process as I understood it. No one took the opportunity to dispute that interpretation so I believe that it now has a little bit more precedent. Other than that, the discussion just sort of petered out. I am continuing to act on that interpretation. The discussion at m:Talk:transwiki has been focusing more on whether the mechanics of the transwiki process are sufficient - do we have a legal obligation to preserve the tracability of every edit or is it sufficient to preserve the simple fact that Author A contributed something to the article. That remains an open question. Short of getting sued and having a judge render an actual decision, I don't know that we will ever definitively answer it. We all agree that it would be better if the MediaWiki capabilities were expanded a bit so we wouldn't have to worry about the question. Rossami (talk)
  • Thanks, Rossami. I'm still confused, though; I don't really understand the whole transwiki process well. I looked at meta:transwiki, and it looks to me that step 6 of the example (transwikiing from English to French) is to list the original on VfD. That aside, I am not certain I understand how one would bring the article back. One, because if the original is deleted, later editors would not know that the article had been transwikied. But two, can you show me how, if ASAP were deleted, one would recover the article/history from wiktionary:ASAP? Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You have several good questions. The problem with the last step of the process described at meta:transwiki is that none of the other MediaWiki projects make the distinctions we do between VfD, CSD, IfD, TfD, etc. They haven't become large enough or busy enough to need them. I don't spend a huge amount of time on the other projects but my understanding is that most of them quickly delete transwiki'd articles without a lot of formal discussion - more like our CSD process than VfD. But you could certainly interpret it either way. You also asked how to bring an article back. If you want to reverse a transwiki decision, you simply transwiki the article in reverse. That means copy-paste the article (and its Talk page) back from Wiktionary to Wikipedia. Since the Wiktionary article's talk page holds the old Wikipedia article's contributor log, when you move it back to Wikipedia, you will have re-established the contribution history (as a pasted list on the new Wikipedia article's talk page). Admittedly, you won't have the tracability of every edit (see comment above) but you will know everyone who contributed to the article. Lastly, you are correct that future reader/editors may not realize that their article was transwiki'd out of Wikipedia. That's a known failing of the process and has led to at least one call that we should instead leave behind a cross-wiki redirect. The objection to the cross-wiki redirect boils down to the fact that it won't show up on "what links here" and therefore is hard to keep current if/when someone moves the page in the receiving project. For example, if someone moved Wiktionary:ASAP to Wiktionary:A.S.A.P., there are no triggers or ticklers to help the Wiktionary team go back to update the links that are in Wikipedia. There are several proposals to fix that weakness but none have been implemented yet (that I know of). Rossami (talk) 14:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Rossami. I still am unclear though; I am not sure if I am misunderstanding matters. Are we looking at the same part of Meta:Transwiki? I'm looking at the example, which concerns a French article written on en:, to be transwikied to fr:. I'm not sure I understand how it could be interpreted either way—Step 6 clearly states: "Then the Lorraine article at the English Wikipedia can be listed on Votes for deletion", with "Votes for deletion" linking to WP:VFD. The last step, step 10, applies to the article in the "Transwiki:" space on the receiving wiki, and only applies if the receiving wiki already had an article with the title and so that article in the transwiki space has to be cut-and-pasted into the already-existing article. If not, the "transwiki" article is simply moved into the article namespace, and no deletion is necessary. Am I misunderstanding this? And I apologize for my lack of comprehension, but can you actually point me to the page where the list of contributors on Wiktionary? You mentioned it would be on the talk page, but wiktionary:Talk:ASAP does not seem to exist. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a confusing topic, made worse because some of the relevant pages have not been kept current. In meta:transwiki, I have always relied on the plain wording in the paragraph Transfer from main to transwiki which reads "The original page may be deleted as soon as it has been moved to the transwiki area." Step 6 in the example does mention Wikipedia's VfD but that example has been around since before the split between VfD and CSD. Back then, we listed everything on the VfD page and could speedily unlist the CSD-equivalents.

The requirement to preserve history is in the paragraph headed Page history. An example of where it was done correctly is at m:Talk:Wikistress. ASAP is a difficult example. Looking at the history of the two articles ([8] and [9]), the Wiktionary article pre-dated the Wikipedia article and at the time of the "transwiki" included most (arguably all) of the relevant content. PoccilScript added the tag that he/she believed it had already been moved to Wiktionary's inbound transwiki queue. It's up to the Wiktionary team to decide if and when to integrate the article from the transwiki queue into their article space. Since the Wiktionary article already has most (arguably all) the relevant content, they may well decide to leave their article as is and to allow the Wikipedia version to languish at wikt:transwiki:ASAP. To complicate it further, I'm not actually sure that this particular article really was transwiki'd. That may have been an assumption based on looking at the current state of the two articles. Or someone could have followed the process incorrectly. I wish I had a better answer for this example. Rossami (talk) 13:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting newcomers (that aren't necessarily sockpuppets)

In the vote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time, a large group of newcomers came here specifically to vote their opinion on the continued existance of the article in question. Because they were users with only one account, they we not sockpuppets (of course, we had no idea whether they were or not). As is often our practice, their votes were not counted. Unaware of this custom, and the reasons behind it, many of them were understandably irate. In the interests of diplomacy and newcomer education, I created a template, {{newvoter}}, that can be posted on the talk page of newcomers that create accounts and head directly in to vote. Here is the current version of this template. Of course, and input would be very valuable, but I think that it would be best if the template were kept brief.

– ClockworkSoul 13:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good thinking BrokenSegue 15:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we disallow newcomers solely because they may be sock puppets. It also discourages the "let's all go down to Wikipedia and vote for/against X" syndrome, which is a good thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. We don't want genuine newbies to believe that the reason their vote isn't counted is because they're a suspected sockpuppet. Carbonite | Talk 15:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with that, but I'm not entirely sure how to state it succinctly enough for our purposes. David Gerard put it very well on a WikiEN-l email as follows: Don't forget to note that "Votes" for deletion aren't "votes" per se - they're an attempt to ascertain whether there is community consensus to delete. If you've made your first-ever Wikipedia edit to VFD, and were there only because of a call to arms on another site, you might reasonably be considered not (yet) part of the community in question. That would need noting. Any thoughts on how we can capture this thought very briefly? – ClockworkSoul 15:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about: Votes for deletion measures community concensus for the deletion of an article. If your edit history does not reflect your involvement in the Wikipedia community, your vote may not be counted.

Something to that effect covers sock puppets and known vandals --nixie 15:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's very good! I'll make that change now: if anybody has any other ideas, just "be bold", etc, etc. – ClockworkSoul 16:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(...) Participation in the community is encouraged, of course, but your status as a brand new user means that your vote might not be counted. A vote for deletion is an attempt to gauge the community consensus, and should not be taken as literal voting. Please understand that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, and that it is necessary to prevent deliberate "loading" of our votes. However, we encourage you to make further contributions to Wikipedia and to become a valuable member of the community.

I think this subtelly lets them know that if they continue contributing, they'll become a member of the community (and thus their votes will have more weight). --Deathphoenix 16:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestions: what do you think? I altered the language a bit to reflect the fact that this template is intended for all voting, not just VfD. – ClockworkSoul 16:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine except.. I don't know, there was some wording from VfD that mentioned that the tallying of consensus is up to the discretion of a person, primarily an Administrator... -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does everything really have to be a template? It's so... impersonal. Like those automated answering systems that every company seems to have on their phones now. It's one thing to use templates for newb tests and vandals, but... Isomorphic 20:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess it beats our usual crack-them-over-the-head approach to dealing with problems. Everyking 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm, the text sounds fine, but the surrounding colored box is unnecessary, and makes very obvious that it's a template, which I think is slightly off-putting. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 20:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. No colored box. Tacky. Isomorphic 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to chime in here. It should be just normal text. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; the coloured box suggests that it's not just some indivudual having a go at the new User, but something related to Wikipedia policy. Also, plain-text templates tend to merge into the surrounding material (that's especially noticeable in articles, though). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's another reason why I don't like the box. The fetishization of "official policy" is annoying. Besides, if you showed up at work and did something wrong, wouldn't you rather get a note from a coworker than an official slap-on-the-wrist (even if it's nicely phrased) from on high? Isomorphic 23:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but even that wasn't being done before. If people can simply throw in the template, then they may actually make the effort. And besides, nobody's talking about making this any kind of "official policy": it's just a convenience, and it will benefit both the newcomers and those that have to deal with them in places like VfD. – ClockworkSoul 23:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but we were arguing that at least it shouldn't look like a template. Isomorphic 01:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus, not concensus. Also, I think we need to explain that when people use the term "sockpuppet" in a VfD page it generally means somebody with no edit history, not necessarily (or even usually) indicating somebody who's voting from more than one account. RickK 21:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

If that's how it's used, then it seems to me that it might be being used incorrectly... a sockpuppet is, by definition, a user's secondary account. Am I mistaken? – ClockworkSoul 21:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the above "sockpuppet" description (little or no edit history) is covered under the "brand new user" term mentioned in the above template. --Deathphoenix 00:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A sockpuppet is also a friend or forum mate of an existing account, who comes to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of making a vote or statement in concurrence with said existing account. Happens sometimes on VfD. The reason is that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between one user creating a dozen accounts, and one user bringing in a dozen friends for a single vote. Radiant_* 10:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts

I've just discovered that Mr Tan (talk · contribs) is the same person as Wikizap (talk · contribs) (at least it appears to be so; Wikizap has just left me a message and signed it Mr Tan — and the standard of English (near incomprehensible) and tone is the same). So far as I know the two accounts haven't been used for nefarious purposes, but this is still deprecated, I believe. What is the normal procedure in such cases? Should I just leave it unless they're misused? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can {{Sockpuppet|Wikizap}} it if you're sure it's a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, that template says: "This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of...", so you might want to subst it and remove the word abusive. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan also posted onto Wikipedia:Changing username, requesting that the accounts be "merged". – ClockworkSoul 18:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

last I checked sockputes were technicaly still allowed.Geni 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as you anounce it and never vote twice in the same poll. Having sockpuppets means we have to watch for violations like this. BrokenSegue 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he requested the accounts to be merged, I don't think he's got any evil intentions. Maybe we can recommend him to link between the accounts. I doubt developers have enough time to reattribute edits. Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have various problems; he's posting from the Wikizap account but manually signing as Mr Tan, and earlier he was manually signing and giving a date seven days in the future... He's also been accusing other editors of writing poor English when his own is sometimes scarcely understandable. He seems not to have felonious intent in this case, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In my experience, he is well-intentioned, but not necessarily an easy person to work with. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit banner

I'm seeing a Pelican shit floating banner on this page and can't spot where its being generated. Thryduulf 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was on {{Shortcut}} and done by Darren2 (talk · contribs), who has now been banned. You're probably now looking at the cached version of that template. violet/riga (t) 15:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It must have been reverted, because I don't see it. It could've been on {{shortcut}}, since that's where I saw it yesterday. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can always see it if you look at the diff, like this. RickK 23:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Great, now they're vandalising templates in new and interesting ways. --Deathphoenix 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of User pages

I'm not sure what is and isn't allowed on User pages; Wikipedia:User pages is a bit sparse. I ask because of Islamist (talk · contribs). he's been engaged in revert wars, pushing a very clear PoV, and I and other editors have had occasion to warn him about his abusive edit summaries. His retaliation takes the form of a User page in which he lists editors who, he claims, "have displayed hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way". Is this all part of the rough and tumble, does it come under 'no personal attacks', or what? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support allowing almost anything on User pages, except personal attacks. I think it crosses the line when a user starts posting against other Wikipedia editors. In the case of User:Islamist, I think it's inappropriate to list user under the description: "The following editors have displayed hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way". This is a personal attack against the listed users and shouldn't be tolerated in any namepsace. I will request that Islamist remove that section. Carbonite | Talk 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While it isn't something to encourage, I've seen people with much worse on their user pages and it was usually allowed by the community (although not without some controversy.) Islamist's page is pretty mild. Isomorphic 04:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't suppose it's a hitlist. I remember Wik's list of people he didn't like for various reasons, it seems a lot like that. Everyking 04:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the list is that it's disruptive and almost certainly can be classified as a personal attack. I have high tolerance for attacks against policy or anything outside of Wikipedia. If an editor wants to make their User page a rant against deletion policy or George W. Bush, they should be allowed. However, it's not appropriate when an editor utilizes his User page to accuse other editors of "displaying hostility" and reverting edits in an "abusive way". This makes it very difficult for other users to interact with him, especially since there is already a great deal of tension. Carbonite | Talk 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandal impersonating Jimbo Wales

There is an anonymous vandal impersonating Jimbo Wales. We might want to take action quickly on this one. User_talk:JIMBO_WALES. RK 16:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• He was blocked indefinitely about a half-hour ago. – ClockworkSoul 17:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration notice - User:Irate

This case is now closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate#Final decision for the full decision - including a three month ban. Please also see WP:AER for a request to block this account. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A real shame. I hope we can account for rulings like this by saying our dispute resolution processes are still young and maturing, but honestly I'm not seeing much positive development. The crack-them-over-the-head approach seems increasingly common, and increasingly severe. Everyking 22:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you have against blocking someone who's contributions are entirely personal attacks and who removes all attempts to discuss the matter with him as "vandalism?" Snowspinner 22:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think it violates the spirit of Wikilove, I think it distracts us from building an encyclopedia, bars contributors and is essentially just a matter of petty politics—which you are of course well acquainted with. Everyking 22:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what would you have us do with disruptive users who will not engage in discussion? Snowspinner 22:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if that was true, it would be a serious issue requiring some deliberation. But I was myself the victim of a arbitration case prepared by you that was 100% false, so why would I believe any accusations you make against anyone else? Everyking 22:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence, presented by myself, Smoddy and Matt Crypto, shows Irate's inability to communicate and his constant personal attacks. Yes, he also made positive edits, but the overall effect he had on Wikipedia was a negative one. violet/riga (t) 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm biased, of course, but I'm glad the ArbCom ruled on this. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to bring this user to book (discussions on Talk pages/IRC/mailing list, an RfC, an arbitration case), and Irate had plenty of chances to reform himself, but he chose to continue behaving badly. Everyking -- have you actually studied this user's behaviour? You'd be wise to do so before hinting about the credibility of the case — it's pretty clear-cut. Moreover, in my opinion, this was a case of Wikipedia being too tolerant of problem users, not too lenient. It would have saved us a lot of hassle if admins could have, from the beginning, been permitted to give Irate a 24 hour block every time he lashed out with personal abuse — this would have solved the problem last month, without wasting everyone's time (so we can get on and write an encyclopedia, you know). — Matt Crypto 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I'm an administrator who errs on the side of caution, who tries to discuss often and block infrequently. But have you looked at the RFAr's evidence page before you made your comments? Many people tried to reason with him; at best, they were ignored; at worst, he vandalized their user pages. Once during his RFAr he agreed to stop making personal attacks but soon resumed. I'm all for Wikilove, but Wikilove can only go so far. If people cannot modify their behavior to work well with others, then stronger measures may be necessary. Our first goal is to create an encyclopedia, and frankly I believe Irate was hindering that, both directly in his contributions and in his disrespectful dealings with other users. I see nothing about this matter that could be considered "petty politics". I really hope that Irate can reform and learn to work with the community, and perhaps when he returns from his ban you can work with him to act with more civility and respect for other editors, and to respond to messages on his talk page instead of deleting them as "vandalism". Then this won't be a problem in the future. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way I look at it, a great many people in this world are not calm, cool-headed, or particularly rational. Nevertheless they have a great deal of knowledge to share and there are a great many ways they can contribute to the project. I don't believe banning Irate will help the project. Someone above said Irate has made good contributions. Well, what does that mean? To me, that means a lot; it means this person was not around just to cause us hell, but was interested in contributing to our encyclopedia, and we've banned him just because we couldn't find a way to tolerate him and let personality differences fall by the wayside. I think that represents a real failure of the community. We need to find a way to hold productive discussions with people we don't like without thinking all the while, Hmm, now how will this look in front of the ArbCom? How many points will this get me? Everyking 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should we have to tolerate gross and public verbal abuse by editors, no matter how good their edits might be? What a peculiar idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Everyking 05:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I realize we disagree on this, but please understand that (I believe) most Wikipedians disagree with you: we should not tolerate this level of personal attacking, just because someone can offer a few good contributions as well. Yes, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Those who are not calm, cool-headed, or rational will have to learn how to interact with others to be part of this team, a community who is working towards a common goal. Interest to contribute is not sufficient. I understand you believe that the Wikipedia community failed and not the editor, but you must realize that most do not agree. Furthermore, even if such users make some positive contributions, they waste the time of other contributors and even drive them off. I believe the community and the encyclopedia are harmed more by allowing rampantly abusive insults. Also, in the case of Irate, I suggest that you modify your sentence to read: "We need to find a way to hold productive discussions with people we don't like without them instantly reverting our comments as 'vandalism'." — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like I defied the ruling and unblocked him. I just expressed my opinion about it. The fact is that we mistreat our own volunteers, sometimes with incredible harshness, and I get angry when I see that happening. Everyking 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, would have greatly preferred Irate to simply have stopped making personal attacks than getting banned for 3 months. I don't know about the others, but that was my goal in the dispute resolution process. But the plain truth is that he simply refused to alter his behaviour; he said outright "I don't give a fuck about Wikquette". What should we have done? Would you prefer that we allow abusive editors to carry on unhindered, completely unsactioned? You criticise this ruling, but you haven't presented any reasonable alternatives as to how we could have handled this user better. — Matt Crypto 17:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a warning, a reminder of the importance of civility, and a personal attack parole (to be enforced by 24-hour blocks) would have been sufficient. Everyking 18:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Because we're trying to build an encyclopedia" -- right. And I'd venture that for every editor like Irate that we tolerate, we drive off two other editors who see no reason to accept public abuse. Think of it in terms of sheer utility. Perhaps you don't get bothered by being called vile names; I venture you're a distinct minority. If I wanted flames, I'd go to usenet. The need for civil cooperation isn't a side-issue; it's at the core of how one puts together a collaborative open encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't think civil cooperation isn't important. I think it is very important, and should be strongly promoted and encouraged. Of course that's the ideal. The problem is, it appears to me that what we've done to Irate by banning him is more abusive than whatever insults he tossed around, because one is just words while the other has a directly practical effect. I suppose I could be wrong about that, but that's how it looks to me. Everyking 06:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just look at his edit wars, particularly regarding Category:Liverpool with 82.35.37.118 (talk · contribs) – totally unreasonable. I am very much against bans, but he wasted the time and effort of so many people just because he wanted everything his way. He was also trying to send good uses to RFC, failed to adhere to his temporary injunction, and emailed those involved in the case against him so that he could further abuse them. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, a practical suggestion here - maybe you could contact Irate and set up a dialogue with him. You may be able to discuss him returning when his ban expires, and help ensure that, if and when he does, there will be no further problems. Perhaps it might help for you to have a discussion with him about how he communicates with other users, and how he would like us to communicate with him. Please do look closely a the evidence page and Irate's talk page history first though - to get a clear idea of what the issues are. -- sannse (talk) 15:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does the decision page still say "Final decision (none yet)"? RickK 23:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because I forgot to change the heading when I filled in the decision. Sorry... fixed -- sannse (talk) 09:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this decision, since there is a policy against personal attacks, and Irate violated it repeatedly. Personal attacks are very disruptive. On the other hand, it disturbs me to see Irate characterized as if he were simply a vandal and did nothing but go around outrageously attacking people. He did plenty of that, but he also made thousands of reaonable useful edits over a period of months. He was unable to control his anger, and Wikipedia was an environment which did not help him at all, indeed one which was frequently provocative -- "wiki love" and all that blather to the contrary notwithstanding. Wikipedia failed here, too, and considering its values, it should recognize it. --BM 11:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not therapy, nor can it provide therapy. If Irate hadn't been recognized as a useful contributor, he would have been unceremoniously and arbitrarily booted for being an abusive vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• When you say "Wikipedia failed here", what do you mean, and what alternative do you suggest? We have two options here: permit both Irate's useful contributions and his endless personal attacks, or permit neither of them. When you suggest that the environment is provocative, I must point out that, if Irate had the capacity to restrain himself, he certainly gave no hint of it in his entire period here; in fact, he recognized his own irateness and gave himself a name which reflects it. Let's not be too hard on ourselves - it's counterproductive. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 15:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I agree with the need to try and help users and avoid provocation, I don't think this is a fair criticism in this instance. From my point of view, we bent over backwards to get Irate to reform (I was one of those taking him to ArbCom) — as you say, he made positive contributions. However, this user erupted without any provocation -- he was just abusive. He (by his own admission) didn't "give a fuck about Wikiquette". Even if he had been approached by the kindest, most considerate Wikipedians, I don't think it would have made much difference. While we should try our hardest to do "wikilove", we should, at the same time, recognise that a minority of users present an intractable problem. Wikipedia didn't fail here; Irate did. — Matt Crypto 17:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Being one of those that had the most vitriol from him I feel that "Wikipedia failed here" is actually a little offensive. I tried and tried again to resolve the situation but his refusal to participate in normal talk page discussions and in the eventual RfC show that his attitude was unreasonable. My first encounter with him was many months prior to this decision and I think we've been more than fair in this case. violet/riga (t) 18:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• people who are unable to collaborate can put their brilliant prose on wikibooks, and leave it to humbler minds to import their insights into Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ArbCom should explore more creative ways of dealing with problems like this. While Irate did cause problems with other users, he did contribute to Wikipedia, and was obviously interested in improving it. Treating him like a common vandal or troll is not a very good solution, IMO. Sure it stops the personal attacks, but it also stops the positive attributes of having him here. Our primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. Establishing a community is, and always will be, a consequence of creating an encyclopedia.

In my humble opinion, there are better options for dealing with cases like this than just banning them (the easy way out), like we do for vandals. Unlike vandals and trolls, Irate did want to help Wikipedia by contributing, he was just more inflammatory than other users. One solution that I think would be more effective and mutually beneficial would be something along the lines of the following. I'll use myself in the example:

• Irate is banned from editing all talk pages (talk, user_talk, etc.) for n months. If Irate wishes to communicate through other users, he must do it through Frazzydee|✍, who will act as a proxy between him and the community.
• Irate may only describe his edit in his edit summary. He may not use it as a vehicle for personal attacks.
• Irate is limited to 1 revert every 24 hours.

Now, I think that would be a much better solution. Irate could contribute to the 'pedia without not pissing off others; but at the same time, he's still able to communicate with them. Having me (or somebody else) as a proxy will ensure that he can still discuss articles (this is important) while also ensuring that he isn't a detriment to the community. Unless there's other problems besides his lack of concern for wikiquette, wouldn't this be a much more constructive and mutually beneficial solution? -Frazzydee|✍ 20:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At some point, the effort is simply not worth it. Ultimately this is a project to produce a great encyclopedia, not a rehabilitation facility for teaching people how to properly interact on Wikis. The amount of time wasted by Irate, and angst generated by his unrelenting hostility and personal attacks, can never be justified by his contributions, which weren't particularly earth-shattering. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above we tried communicating with him and even an RfC, but if he isn't able to work with that simple process, and then went on to violate his temporary injunction, then why would we think that he'd behave under those conditions? violet/riga (t) 20:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, the best thing would be for Irate to curb his behaviour. It seems backwards that we should be wracking our brains to find an elaborate solution to what is, ultimately, Irate's problem. I don't see why we should put so much effort into accomodating users who show zero respect for others. — Matt Crypto 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move wars

• Between Liancourt rocks(former name), Liancourt rock, Dokto (its korean name) and perhaps with Takeshima. Now it can't be moved to the former name Liancourt rocks to which most of interlang links aim. In my personal opinion, the best but tentative solution would be that: once moved to the former place, protect from move and begin a RfC on its name. --Aphaea* 16:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

Reporting of all types of incidents other than 3RR violations (e.g. informal complaints over the behaviour of an admin, blocked users evading blocks, etc) is done on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (shortcut WP:AN/I).

Three-revert rule violations

Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor

This page has been wrongly deleted for supposed copyright violation. I provided permission for use of the image and text for the article to BC Bookworld. It is my copyrighted material. If you still have a problem with this, let me know and I will submit new material that I have permitted no one to use.

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor