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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Grawp

Fuck WP:DENY, we have a serious problem here. I don't want my watchlist looking like this every day:

1. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
2. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
3. (Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia over redirect (vandalism)
4. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6))
5. (Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (vandalism)
6. (diff) (hist) . . Something Nice Back Home‎; 11:18 . . (+32) . . 78.156.210.247 (Talk) (da:)
7. (diff) (hist) . . Amy Winehouse‎; 11:11 . . (-13) . . Wildhartlivie (Talk | contribs) (copy edit)
8. (Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia to Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
9. (Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Akrotiri and Dhekelia to HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
10. (diff) (hist) . . m List of incomplete Doctor Who serials‎; 10:33 . . (+1) . . Moochocoogle (Talk | contribs) (→Third Doctor)
11. (diff) (hist) . . Max Mosley‎; 10:16 . . (-321) . . 4u1e (Talk | contribs) (trim lead per template. Article is 35k+ characters, for which WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs)
12. (Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
13. (Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Star Wars' (and the only contributor was 'Luna Santin'))
14. (Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Star Wars over redirect (revert)
15. (Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Star Wars over redirect (revert)
16. (Move log); 09:53 . . Gifðas (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Star Wars to Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)(for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
17. (Move log); 09:52 . . Gifðas (Talk | contribs) moved Star Wars to HAGGEЯ?(spaces)(for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])

We've got several problems here:

• It took nearly twenty minutes for admins to fix serious vandalism on the article for Star Wars
• It is very easy for sleeper attacks (two in an hour, and my watchlist is rather small - 200 items including most of my images, and some wikiprojects and noticeboards)

So think. What's the best way of fixing this? We could implement an edit requirement on moves - it's one line of code, IIRC. But we really need to stop Grawp. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If only there was someone that could save us... Nakon 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't moves part of the stuff that only auto-confirmed accounts can do? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Register account. Return in a week. Easy street. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its only 4 days. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The sleepers were from 2007. At least one was, in this case. SQL^{Query me!} 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The last three I've seen (in the last 3 days) have been from 2007. May 2007 to be exact. He obviously has a list of them and is using them up in order of creation. I would assume that he is creating them as fast as he uses them up. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I would support adding even a minimal edit count restriction on autoconfirm. This would cut down on sleeper socks used to edit semi-protected pages as well. Also of interest is a quick script I wrote to auto-revert pagemoves, User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js. It adds a "revert all" tab when viewing a move log. I'm still working on a version that will also delete the redirects created. Also, it isn't very tested (I used it once) but it should work. If you use it, make sure to turn off "Add pages I move to my watchlist" or your watchlist will look like this when you are done. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the hard way is to convince a developer to program a feature that would block any page move that involves "HAG" as part of the move, then again that seems like a lot of unneded work and we don't want to give him bragging rights for his stupidity, so what is left? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that such a solution would have unintended negative side effects. I do support a minimum edit count before autoconfirming, though. —Travis^talk 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Add a minimal edit count restriction for autoconfirm, we already have a titleblacklist Mr.Z-man 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we should establish a solid number, not something that could be ignored by doing a few minor edits, so 250? 500? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That was proposed earlier for another form of semi protection to protect against sleeper vandalism-only accounts, at one time dubbed quasi protection. It was shot down originally due to wasting so much time since admins would have had to confirm each account. Then it was proposed again when the software was updated so that it would automatically be confirmed after x amount of edits. I don't think that proposal gained enough consensus for it to be implemented. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(3xec)I bumped up the priority of SpamRegex request, which will enable us to blacklist things (like "HAGGER" and all its possible variants in one regex) just about wherever people can type them - page titles, move fields, edit summaries, log entries, usernames; you name it, it's blocked. All they have to do is install it, and Grawp's sunk. Sure he can keep being annoying, but we won't know it's him without the trademark "hagger" string, and where's the fun in that? Happy‑melon 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why new users should have to clock up an arbitrary, fixed number of edits before being allowed to move a page. My fourth ever edit, 15 minutes after registering, was a page move [1]. --RFBailey (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a throttle then, 1 page move per minute till a user have 100 edits? Or some form of captcha for page moves for editors with under 100 edits. MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just limit moves to non-admins and non-flagged bots to 1 every 5 minutes? How often does any non-bot or non-admin really need to move a page...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

300 seconds is a long time to wait. In November of 2006 for example I moved pages quite a bit faster than that, and for legitimate reasons. Maybe you meant 5 every 1 minute? — CharlotteWebb 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've contacted Mike Godwin and asked for the release of Grawp's IP. I've yet to get a response but once I do we may be a step closer to getting his ISP to track him down in real life. Also it may be worth mentioning that a bugzilla request was made for an "extension spam regex" which would allow for the blacklisting of content in edit summaries. This request may have already gone through, as Grawp is now modifying the content of his edit summaries.--Urban Rose 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikey is a very busy guy, no need to bother him. It is already public knowledge that this twat is editing from various IPs in the 71.107.128.0/18 range (71.107.128.0 to 71.107.191.255), though there are probably others. — CharlotteWebb 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Grawp might use a botnet so tracing his IPs might just get a compromised computer. I read here once some vandal did that and I don't know if it was Grawp or not. William Ortiz (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you say why you think that? If need be, e-mail me to avoid WP:BEANS. Even if all we get is a zombie computer, it should be reported, so it can be cleaned out. Either way, we catch something. And if it is compromised by Grawp, checking the logs on there might give us more information about him. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And WP:FICT got moved to a Hagger title. Why are we sitting around doing nothing? We should, at the very least, move-protect all guidelines and policies - there's no earthly reason why they should be moved anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong told me that a lot of the recent accounts were sleeper socks that were really old. By looking at them most haven't contributed for 3 months to a year. William Ortiz (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We have everything under control. There is no need for alarm. El_C 09:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks H.A.L.! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

His stupidity has been showing up on my watchlist almost every day on this week, the socks are living too long for my taste and are being able to move a lot of pages before being smashed with the banhammer, thus I respectfully disagree that we have him under control. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Having looked at this again I would tend to think that we need some minimum edit count before becoming autoconfirmed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I recognized some of those. He (or someone else) regularly spams /b/ on 4chan with urls to do these type of operations hoping someone accidentally (or intentionally) clicks on them. The reason I suspect it is the same person is the aforementioned urls provide the same comments in the &wpSummary= field when he posts them. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Caribbean H.Q. and Stifle above, I'm not sure Grawp is under control. My watchlist has been frequently cluttered by this silly nonsense. I do think a minimum edit count for autoconfirmation would help make life harder for sleeper sock farms without causing much collateral damage. 100 edits? - Neparis (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a solution that would virtually put and end to vandalism, sockpuppetry, and the countless hours of our lives that we spend reverting and blocking it: Require account creation and a confirmed ISP email address. I'm not here to start another argument over whether or not account creation should be required. I know that the Meta states that one of Wikipedia's core principles and one that should virtually be beyond debate is that account creation shouldn't be required. I'm just stating the reason why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. Would it mean to fewer fly by typo corrections? Yes. Would it mean some users would stop contributing to Wikipedia? Yes. Would it put a total end to vandalism? No. But it won't deter dedicated users from contributing to the encyclopedia. And that's how the majority of good articles in this encyclopedia got to be what they are today. They were written by a (relatively) few dedicated users who make large contributions, not by many contributors making small contributions over a great period of time. I don't have the statistics which prove this, but it is my strong belief that this is what such statistics will show. For more information, see my userpage on Encyclopedia Dramatica (User:UR) (the image and caption on the page were not put there by me) or my upcoming post at Wikipedia review. (I originally created an account on ED to try to get them to remove stuff about me from an article but ended up realizing that I might as well be editing the site than putting up with this nonsense that is vandalism). If you disagree with me, just ignore this, I'm not here to argue. This is probably going to be my last post for a long while. Until the administration makes these changes, I just can't see any reason to continue here. I may occasionally make edits to actual articles, but I've had enough of reverting edits by schoolkids, sociopaths and autistics to articles I didn't even write.--Urban Rose 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you have no ISP email address? I don't have one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm changing my opinion and saying that just any email address will do, though this would mean that dedicated sockpuppeteers would still be able to vandalize by creating multiple email accounts. Though I agree that if there are people who don't have ISP email addresses, it wouldn't be beneficial to stop them from editing.--Urban Rose 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an ISP per se; I'm at a restaurant with free WiFi. Requireing an email would be great; a unique one that gets confirmed, would not have to be enabled for user email. For those who don't, wait 500 edits before you can move stuff. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Though it may be productive to come up with precautionary measures to combat these serial vandal page moves; vandalism is a problem that will always exist on Wikipedia. In a sense these blatant forms of it are move desirable (if you could call vandalism desirable), since they are easier to detect. The more sinister forms of vandalism are the ones that come from accounts that insert microscopic errors which may not be discovered for months. Also, we have a million Grawps that visit our site on a regular basis, so in my opinion this Grawp ain't that unique and really shouldn't be glorified in this manner. Basically you can sum up my opinion with these lyrics from a great Beatle's song..."Let it be, let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be." Whispers: "Let 'em be" to wallow away as we RBI 'em out and continue building an encyclopedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these "Grawp" threads are glorifying him and this time I didn't create it. And I'm not retiring from vandal fighting because of Grawp. It's because of vandals in general. True if my proposal was implemented, vandals would still exist, but in such small numbers that people wouldn't have to spend hours a day browsing recent changes just to keep their encyclopedia intact. The countless hours that are spent on this is just ridiculous when it could virtually be eliminated by just two simple measures. Sadly, as Wikipedia (falsely, in my opinion) believes that allowing users to edit the site without registering is what is responsible for its greatness (which would be much more so if this was implemented), it isn't likely that this is going to happen any time soon. I also forgot to mention that I am for users being allowed to make anonymous practice edits to the sandbox or Wikipedia:Introduction, but allowing anonymous edits to the whole encyclopedia is the reason that vandalism is so rampant, and is a reason that many legitimate editors who care about Wikipedia are getting tired of having to put up with it and choosing to leave.--Urban Rose 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And again on Clover (creature) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While the vandalism itself doesn't annoy me, it's the fact its flooding watchlists. Where should suggestions to bump up the autoconfirmed limit be made? VPT or VPP? Sceptre ^(talk) 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We're working on it. Also, that user would have probably gotten past the autoconfirmed limit (it has several hundred edits). The main "autoconfirmed" issue is that these sleepers have no edits; but this one does, as have several others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably VPP first - technically it's an absolute doddle to enact (one line in the right config file by someone with shell access). Get support from VPP then either file a bug request yourself or ask someone who regulars at VPT to do it. Happy‑melon 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And Grawp hit meta this morning. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing that lately, too. Lar is working on things. He has checkuser both here and there, so we may be rid of Grawp, once we can narrow down his editing range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have one IP we know is Grawp's; see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Grawp IPs. I would also like to point readers of this conversation to my essay on he and his followers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many (but definitely not all) articles should be move-protected. Why do we want pages like George W. Bush or Paris ever moved on a whim, anyway without WP:RM? Since HAGGERs are up to such high profile articles mostly, that would save a lot of grief. Same applies to user-pages. Some users are particularly liked by HAGGERs. Betacommand and Raul come to mind for the userpages moved by vandals more often than others. Why should such moves be needed in the first place to allow them by default? --Irpen 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not always so; Grawp hit a lot of country articles today, and attacked D&D a few days ago. He appears to be going at random. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, Irpen. I'm all for move-protecting such obvious cases that would require a proper move request anyway. - Regards, Ev (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd and bolted one of his favorite targets to the floor; he won't be able to move it anytime soon. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does anyone need to be able to move so many pages per minute? A great deal of the damage could be mitigated by simply limiting the number of pagemoves per minute. Any mass-moves should probably be done through consensus discussion anyways. --Tom (talk - email) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be a limit per account, or else legitimate moved might get stymied. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, since Grawp seems to enjoy changing pages tothe nonsense term HAGGAR?? or variations therof, why don't we make a preemptive strike, we could create a page with that name, as well as other pages covering likely variations, and then lock the page down indefinently. On the page should be a brief explanation that the page exists to prevent Grawp from moving other pages to HAGGAR?? . It isn't a permanent solution, and is definently unconventional, but maybe it would atleast slow Grawp down. F-451 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't work, when you include Unicode variants, space and NBSPing variants, and other terms in the title the possibilities are actually endless. And I'd say have 1 billion GRAWP preventing page protections and 2.5 million articles would be overkill. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MBianz; Grawp has a fondness for Unicode, as shown in his move targets and his usernames. However, this fondness makes some of his socks obvious, as he mainly only uses obscure ones. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions I haven't seen here that may be helpful for various reasons, mostly Grawp:

1. A minimum edit count per se to stop moves is probably a poor choice. Most of his socks seem to have 2-3 edits when they are originally created, and of course they are all named accounts. So an edit count above 10 would be a reasonabe minimum, but I am unquiet that that would not be an annoyance to autoconfirmed users. I think there are better solutions.
2. Non-admin rollback is limited to N per minute. Non-admin move could be limited similarly, although not necessarily to the same values. 3 moves/minute should be fine for most users, assuming that a move of a page and the corresponding talk page is counted as a single move. Note that 3 moves/minute is one every 20 seconds. Given an even slightly slow DSL line that isn't much of a limitation.
3. Non-admin moves could be limiited to M per 24 hours, where M is <= 10. Ideally there should be a priv bit similar in concept to the rollback bit that could be granted to users on request to increase this limit substantially, or remove it completely.
4. Grawp socks lie dormant for most of a year. If there have been no edits in the account in the past 30 days, or less than 1 edit/day over the last 30 days (or similar), deny moves as though the user was not autoconfirmed. This would force Grawp to do 30 normal vandalisms on a sock account before he could begin using it for move vandalism. Likely that would be caught before Bad Things started to happen.
5. Grawp socks never bother having a user page. If the user has < X edits/day in the last month or so and has no user page, don't allow moves.
6. If warnings on the talk page could be flagged in the database, disallow moves if a warning of any sort has been issued in the last day. This would stop moves as soon as the first recent changes patroller warned on a move.
7. If an account has been dormant for 30 days, disallow moves for one day after an intial edit.

Just some thoughts, maybe some useful. Grawp is a pain to deal with. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec'd with above) Ideas that have been discussed before and not gone anywhere are limits on what new accounts can do. Things that would be effective are no moves allowed until an account is somewhat 'seasoned'; limits on how many moves can be performed before an account is 'well-seasoned'. Many of these accounts are old sleepers and to deal with this, the definition of 'seasoned' would have to include recent activity. There is no reason for an account that's done nothing in months to suddenly move 40 pages. Some of this rather goes against the grain of what a wiki 'is' but this is not the wiki-verse of some years ago; this site is hugely popular and this attracts all sorts of people some of whom are rather less than stellar. The naughty boy in this case has said he won't stop; believe it. He has to be made to stop. As Jack Merridew said, Sharpen a stick at both ends. I may add a fuller snippet to my userpage. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• This, again, isn't always the case; a couple nights ago we caught him on a TOR address creating loads of sleepers with Unicode symbols, which suggests to me he's running out of prepped sleepers (and, yes, we know it's him because the Unicode symbols are obscure and two of the names suffered from Potteritis). And, again, we already have an IP we can use to rat him out to his ISP; I don't think he'll find any lulz if he's cut off. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Think outside the box

1. Limit page move throttle to 1 or 2 per minute - should be enough for most people.
2. Create a permission "fastmove" that allows to move pages at rates unrestricted by above throttle.
3. Give fastmove to admins and allow admins to grant and revoke the fastmover group to users (a group that consists only of the fastmove permission).

Thank you for your attention. Миша13 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like. Why not just link fastmove to rollback permissions to save another layer? Except then we perpetuate this nonsense of "classes" of editor/rollbacker/admin/'crat etc - that would be the reason. Okay, answered myself. Still, I like the idea of throttling page moves though. Pedro :  Chat  10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - these are utility permissions (like all are) and should be granted as needed (and independently) and not to indicate some "social status" of an editor. Besides, unlike the rollback, I don't expect a surge of requests - batch page moves (see User:SPUI) are not something common - the default rate should really be enough for everyday work. Миша13 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

here is a simple thought create a Curps bot. I have a framework for one sitting around, that will quickly put an end to this pain in the ass. β^_command 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you forgot, I already *am* running my own "curpsbot" (and have been so for over 1.5 years). And no, it's not putting and end very efficiently, because Grawp is using new smart unicode substitutions every time I update the regex lists. We need a systemic solution that would aid the symptomatic one. Миша13 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Throw the regex out the window, and block anyone moving pages with an edit summary linking to any external link. Would there be any (legit) reason to move a page, while using an external link in the edit summary? And if there is, simply put the link and reason on a userpage, ANI, or something like that, and use that in the move summary. Grawp socks would then be caught faster, or he wouldn't be able to use that tactic anymore. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WMF Logos

This is being cross-posted from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#WMF_Logos on request for greater visability. Images like Image:Wikimedia.png are non-free copyrighted images owned by the WMF that should only be used per FUR guidelines. I think we should comment their use out of all userpages that have them as fairuse overuse. This is because all page of wikipedia, including user pages, should be non-free compliant. While it may not be a legal problem directly, for all the sites that scrape our database, their violating the copyright when they republish a userpage with the logo. Also, someone could argue trademark dilution if the logo is slapped willy-nilly on every user page. Any objections to commenting them out?. MBisanz ^talk

I object, largely on the basis that I see this as more paranoia than factually-driven. Has anyone from the Foundation voiced an opinion on the matter? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMF position from the last time I raised this question (~6 months ago, if I recall correctly), is that they have no official position. Or to put it more plainly they have not granted any license or permission for any generic third party use of their copyrights and trademarks within or outside of Wikipedia. At the same time, they are aware of these uses and have not taken any explicit action to generically restrict or remove the unathorized use of their copyrights and trademarks within Wikipedia. (Though it is worth noting that they have removed a few specific examples of infringing uses in the past.) So you can read into that whatever you want. MBisanz is basically correct that in the absense of an authorizing license, all of these uses created by Wikipedians represent acts of copyright/trademark infringment both within Wikipedia and for reusers. However, the WMF is obviously in a position to snuff this out even without legal action, should they choose to do so. I've been advocating for an official WMF Logo use policy for nigh on 2 years now, but it seems little progress has been made. Personally, my feeling is that under the current situation they are plainly unfree and purely decorative uses of WMF logos should be restricted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) MB

Echoing Dragon flight, I just checked my userpage, I have 5 violating images on it, 4 just through using userboxes with copyrighted images. If you want to look at it another way, were the WMF to sue an outsider for using the logo as a trademark violation, the outsider user would have an easy time convincing people that the trademark was already diluted beyond repair through our overuse, so reallyyou could think of it that we're hurting the foundation by overusing them to this extent. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• They are copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I understand your concerns, but so far I haven't found a statement giving permission for re-use on en-wiki userpages. Could someone check OTRS-permissions? MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for permission. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer I get is... Officially no, it is up to the community how they police that. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, if we don't have legal permission to use the logos, then I think we ought to err on the side of caution. I don't mind if their used on say a policy page or that sort of thing, but using it on welcome templates is to me, overuse, considering its not critical to see that logo to understand how to use WP or what the WMF is. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as above, officially, no permission. The community takes on the role of how they handle this. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine the WMF suing Wikipedia... John Reaves 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But what about About.com for scraping it with our userpages... MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should worry ourselves excessively over what other websites do; we have pathetically little influence over websites that aren't hosted by the Foundation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think we should worry about distributing "free" content that is in fact unfree. That's the situtation we often create by embedding WMF logos in things. In my opinion, if the logo isn't actually important to the topic being discussed we would probably be better off to do without it. Dragons flight (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear folks, our trademark lawyers (outside counsel) advise us not to approve the use of our trademarks outside official Foundation activities or projects. There are good reasons for this -- one of them is the purpose of trademark law itself, which is to prevent marketplace confusion. Another is that we don't want a symbol of affiliation that might signal to litigious people that you're responsible for what we do, or that we're responsible for what you do. So, we're asking people not to use the trademarks (either the graphic or the word mark), although of course you can engage in "nominative fair use," aka "nominative use." (There's a good article on the subject on en.wiki.) 69.17.48.227 MikeGodwin (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion for a long time is that we shouldn't use these. If the WMF releases another logo with a free copyright license, we can use that. Until then, it's hypocritical for us to speak for free content while not walking the walk. (And, it's absurd that a screenshot of our main page has to be classified as nonfree.) Perhaps we can have a competition for a free Wikipedia logo? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to give some size to the issue, there are over 500 uses of the less popular WMF logo and over 500 of the WP globe logo, I suspect their placement on certain high use templates means the actual number is in the tens to hundreds of thousands. I took Mike's advice and looked at Nominative use. I'd say that by placing the logos on the Welcome tempaltes and on userboxen we run into problems relating to:

2. The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol)
3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.

When we welcome a user, we are welcoming them as another user, not on behalf of WMF or the project it owns, Wikipedia. Also, in userboxes I don't think a logo is necessary to identify that I have a WMF issued global account. Carl brings up some good ideas, but I'd say that until we find some artistic talent, at least killing them off the Templates and userpages would be a good start. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a Bot request to this end at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2. MBisanz ^talk 07:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been debated time and time again. This is really a discussion for WP:NFC and not WP:AN. The basic gist is that we don't have a problem with using these copyrighted logos because we are using them for the operation of Wikipedia, and in limited fashion. WP:CVU used to have official logos, and those were removed. No big deal. If we need to evaluate some situations, ok, but a total ban for meta space is absurd and entirely unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin says, above, that we should treat these as fair use images. NFCC is clear that fair use images shouldn't be used except in namespace 0. I think that is a quite compelling argument for removing them from other namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Necessary - as the foundation fails to protect their copyright/trademark, it loses value and enforcability. WilyD 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And we aren't using them in limited amount, we have them in dozens of templates on thousands of userpages. Mr.Z-man 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For perspective, the main Wikipedia globe is used on 43,000 talk, user, and user talk pages. Thats one of 100 images being targeted by this proposed bot function. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. Various people have suggested, for years, that we follow our own fair use guidelines with regards to the WMF logos. Various people have responded, that since the WMF was unlikely to sue itself, the present practices could continue until the legal team said to stop. And when asked for their official position, the foundation replied by telling us that their official position consisted of not having an official position at all. So things continued. Now, 7 years after the project starts, when the legal team finally decides to consult their (undoubtedly overpriced) "outside counsel" on copyright affairs, they tell them that in fact there is no particular reason to continue to ignore common sense and trash our copyright in this manner. And now, years after this issue was first raised, we finally get our answer: No using the WMF logos on user pages. Now of course it is up to us to waste yet more foundation resources making tens (hundreds?) of thousands of edits to fix it. All because they decided to leave us hanging for this long. And no one is even remotely worried about the fact that this is the star team of lawyers upon whom we daily rely to protect us from potential lawsuits with the use of an outdated copyright law used out of the context for which it was originally intended? If I got any of this wrong, please tell me. I would like very much for this sudden worry at the long-term viability of this website to be unfounded.--Dycedarg ж 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd be simple enough to code a bot to do the removing. But yes, it's a legacy of the carefree days of Wikipedia's youth when nobody gave a shit about these issues, because the "brand" was worthless and nobody have ever heard of the place. WilyD 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is no rush to complete this task, and frankly, a lot of this discussion seems as though there's a pressing need to have these images removed as soon as humanly possible. The reality is that these images have been used for years, and removing them should only be done with care. Personally, I think some of the uses of the WMF logo are blatantly trivial (welcome templates, etc.). However, simply disabling the images (prepending the Image code with a colon) is a bad idea. The image should either be replaced or removed altogether. But I will say again that there isn't a need to have all of this done by the end of the day, or by the end of this week, or even by the end of May. If the community spends a week or two discussing this, nothing is lost. (And perhaps as Carl suggested, we could have a contest to create a free alternative.) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought my page was clean, and then I noticed Template:Administrator had Image:Admin mop.PNG. Is that one of the images that would be removed if we clamp down on this? I've read the image page, and I can't work out what it means. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be because it includes the Wikipedia globe. WODUP 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• A copyright holder can allow a specific person or organization or group or class to use their images in a specific way. The WMF said that the community should decide how to handle this. That means, by my interpretation, that if we decide to allow the use of WMF images anywhere within wikipedia, that this is allowed by their permission, because the community decides it. So why not make this simple and just decide it's quite okay, and just move on to other important issues? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe you have fundementally misunderstood. See my comment below. I believe the "decision" to make now is how to go about resolving the issue by reducing the inappropriate uses, but that simply deciding to keep them is not an option because as evidenced by Mike Godwin above the WMF does not approve that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• One would think that they would allow the use of their own logo on their own websites. Otherwise, they'd have to be removed off of every single page on every single project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry makes a very good point. If they let the community decide, let's just decide to keep it and get it over with. Without going through the trouble of making a bot, ruining the looks of many userpages, etc, why not just let them be? Even if it's copyrighted, we keep saying that a logo is no allowed on its own site. Soxred93 (u t) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think letting the community decide to keep them was an option. Look at the statement by Mike Godwin, the WMF general counsel, above: "we're asking people not to use the trademarks...". That seems pretty plain to me. I believe what was intended is that we, the community, can decide how we deal with phasing them out, but not that we have the option to decide to keep them indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And regardless of the rest, "nonfree", even "nonfree with permission to use on Wikipedia", is not acceptable in userspace. Only free images may be used in userspace. The Wikimedia logos are nonfree, so they're no more acceptable than, say, the Nike logo would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody better let Nike know that they have to remove their logo from their website then, eh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about Nike's website? I believe the intended point was that they consider the Wikimedia logo to be no more acceptable than the Nike logo in userspace on Wikipedia... --Onorem♠Dil 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "Nike" was a typo for "Mike". -- 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the official logos from a number of pages, both in article and in meta space. There's no reason we can't calmly assess different uses of the logos and slowly roll out changes as needed. We certainly don't need a total ban, and we certainly don't need to put the entire community into a panic. We've got several graphics that can easily be replaced, and rather quickly in our highest use templates, without much controversy. We've got commons:Image:Wiki letter w.svg (more in commons:Category:Wikipedia puzzle piece icons) and tons more.

Once we hit up the high use templates and such, we probably won't even need to touch the individual uses. We'll have taken care of most of the problem with the templates. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the issue of screenshots of the main page being non-free has been discussed before. The consensus was to just scroll down a bit when taking the screenshots so that the Wikipedia logo would not be included. See Image:Windows Internet Explorer 7 Vista.png and Image:Opera screenshot.png for example. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but apparently MBisanz has stated that he exchanged an email with Mike. Seems we may have misinterpreted Mike's earlier comment :S.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably should've cross posted. ZScout370 is going to try and get an on-wiki statement from Mike, but suffice it to say, his email makes it clear that WMF logos may be used in any userspace of the project. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally, yes, we can use them all we like. However, we should take care to keep them out of the article space whenever possible because they are still non-free. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If these images are usable on the userspace, then it's clear that we can use them in any space necessary. They're only not-free to non-Wikimedia entities. Unless they need to qualify for fair use rationales (while being on the Commons), then they're free to use in the article space without any sort of justification (I would assume).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for an image to be non-free to one group and free to another. These images are non-free, full stop, and we have to tag them as such to avoid misleading others. Personally, I don't see why we should waive the NFCC criteria for them. I think we should simply make a free logo and stop using the WMF's logo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's what we did to create the WMF logo. Then the author signed over the copyright to the foundation. The reason the WMF doesn't release their logos under the GFDL or CC or some other free license, is purely to prevent impersonation or brand-identity issues - if it's clear that a site is trying to directly impersonate wikipedia, the WMF can take them to court for misuse of the logos, trademarked phrases, etc. I'd argue that, far from being trademark dilution, using the WMF logos around wikimedia actually reinforces their use as a brand image. Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but Mike Godwin and co are lawyers, and they've said that we can use the WMF logos freely outside the mainspace; so that's what we'll do (actually, keep doing :D). It'd be nice to get a full and formal statement in writing into OTRS or a mailing list archive, but the message is clear. There's precious little to gain from arguing that the legal expertise of any or all of wikipedia's users is more significant than that of its legal counsels, because that's simply not the case. Happy‑melon 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned whether the foundation gives us permission to use the images. My opinion, based on our mission for free content, is that we should not be using a non-free logo on our main page or on user pages. We don't accept other nonfree images "with permission" and we shouldn't accept these either. So I'm not very concerned about brand identity. I am interested to see Mike Godwin's actual comments, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for clarity from Mike or someone else with the WMF, but if the response amounts to: "Wikipedians can you these on Wikipedia, but they are unfree everywhere else", then I largely agree with Carl. The inclusion of unfree images in the free encyclopedia is potentially a giant "gotcha" for reusers, and we should limit these unfree images in much the same way we restrict other unfree images, i.e. to what is useful and necessary, and exclude things that are frivilous and purely decorative. Dragons flight (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry is 100% spot on. I'll tell you what is frivolous, these absurd concerns about nothing. There is no gotcha. The rational solution is not to distribute non-article related space. Why the heck does anyone need meta-related stuff? Obviously, the user accounts don't get distributed, so why the userpages? Once again, this is nothing more than worrying for the sake of worrying by people making Stallman-esque arguments about theoretical freedom. Even if we are to be concerned about theoretical freedom, it doesn't matter since userspace is not article space, thus it doesn't directly impact the mission of the encyclopedia. Someone needs to close this as "unneeded drama." --Dragon695 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we make more free content available? A retreat from free-content seems a bad way for Wikipedia to progress. Don't forget that the aim of the project is to create a free encyclopaedia, not just an encyclopaedia. It is bad practice to shy away, in any fashion, from open-source and free-content principles. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent] m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically we should be aiming to include as little non-free content as possible. Yes, it's probably true that we don't have to -- but we really should. That dictum is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. There aren't legal issues here, and it's pretty asinine to suggest there are. But freedom should be an object wherever possible not least because it is good practice to emphasise freedom of content -- and it is similarly asinine to suggest there is an over-riding consideration of any type that would merit ignoring that principle. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: are these images nonfree? Then they don't belong on userpages. There is no drama. I'm not sure I'm ok with all of this "Let's just ignore the pesky NFCC policy" attitude. --Kbdank71 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They are, under any definition of the term, "non-free". They have precisely the status of all those "Wikipedia-only" images we used to have and (rightly) got rid of. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is not free, yes. But it's only not free to non-Wikimedia entities. The template on the Commons now clearly states that "Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission, except for use on any page of a Wikimedia Foundation project" (their emphasis, not mine). Clearly, the Wikimedia copyright is not being negatively affected by having their logo in the default viewing schema of all of their main projects. Y'all are way too paranoid about the freeness of this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's at least have this debate in the right terminology. If it is "not free to non-Wikimedia entities", it is, in fact, simply "not free". Equating "we are allowed to use this" with "it is free for us to use this" is completely wrong. It isn't paranoia -- it's a desire to be consistent and to practise freedom wherever we can. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that userspace is not mirrored. And nobody could argue that because WMF allows use of its logos on its own websites that it has allowed dilution of its trademark status and therfore can't litigate against people who try to use it to imitate WMF or otherwise damage WMF's interests. So there really is nothing more to worry about here. No more need for copyright paranoia and much-ado-about-nothing wikidrama. So please, let's just close this thread as a waste of time and space. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems a lot of people are forgetting that userspace is not mirrored. Since the logo is on every page anyway (at least on monobook), then I don't see a reason why it should be barred from userpages. As it goes, surely if we remove it from userpages we should remove the logo from the top left of userpages too? That would be just going much, much too far. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question for the more knowledgeable. I do not know if I remember correctly but I thought I saw in the past where editors were able to modify the logo to fix a perceived error. If that is true is that edit released GDFL and if it is how is that copyrightable. Even if the Foundation officially adopted logo would it still be released GDFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When logos are uploaded, they are specifically exempted from the GFDL and have their copyright transferred to the Foundation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You and Jerry are simply mistaken about the mirroring. We do distribute dumps that include userspace (and in fact all namespaces). Reusers can choose not to use that information, but some do, and {{userpage}} (for example), exists in recognition that userpages also get mirrored on non-Wikimedia sites. In answer to Asenine, the only elements that aren't mirrored in database dumps are user interface elements such as logos in the upper right, so those are perhaps the only bit that can be considered irrelevant to that consideration. Dragons flight (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

Moved from WT:AIV to request wider input.

I am encountering more and more instances were vandals are being reported, and blocked, as "vandalism only accounts" when they have made a handful of edits. In many cases these accounts have not being properly warned. There seems to be a number of users and admin who have interpreted "vandalism only account" to include any account where all the edits are vandalism even if the total number of edits is only a handful, and consider this grounds circumventing the usual warning escalation process. Of course, the problem with this is that the initial contributions of almost every new vandal are all vandalism, so fall under the "vandalism only account" definition and the warning circumvention. It would be useful to get other opinions :on this. TigerShark (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly an issue I see. Too many RC patrollers use descriptions such as "vandslism after final warning", "vandalism only account", and "vandalism directly after release of a block." Now, sometimes, this may be true, but it appears the current thought by RC patrollers is that using these sort of descriptions may automatically be blocked by admins. Giving false or misleading comments in an effort just to get a user/IP blocked, is serious. If it's true, I'm all for it. But if it's just an effort to get a block, then I'm against it. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my response to TigerShark at their talkpage; sometimes there are factors that are not apparent in dry text. For instance, it is now the weekend - in the UK it is early Sunday morning and in the US it is late afternoon to mid evening. It is Saturday night and young people are getting on the internet and having fun, and some may be minded to vandalise a top 10 site which allows anonymous editing... a string of vandal edits across a diverse range of subjects (no non subject areas, just the articles) can be indicative of someone who is up for teh lulz only. Vandal fighters (reporters and admins alike) sometimes get a sense of who is editing with no intent to ever contributing usefully, and it can be frustrating to have to allow someone to prove beyond all doubt that they are only here to disrupt before acting. Do we (and I specifically mean the admins who act) ever get it wrong? Surely, yes, but hopefully we are right so much more often to have a big net gain to the encyclopedia.

That said, earlier I was declining most reports and my last block before this comment was to a school ip regarding vandalism that was some time ago... for 24 hours... it will have expired before school re-opens on Monday...

It ain't perfect - just like people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will look at the contribs and warnings of any account before I block it, regardless of what the RC patroller has written. However, I will happily also block accounts with only a few edits, and few warnings if it is clear that they are only here to vandalise. It's a balance. Black Kite 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Black Kite here - if an account has only caused vandalism, and they've had sufficient warning, I see no reason not to give an indefinite block. After all, if the user wants to contribute seriously at a future date, they can create a new account once the autoblock has expired. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, because BlackKite mentions them having had some warnings. Don't get me wrong, if an account vandalises after a couple of warnings (including some form of final warning), then I would completely agree with a block (initially of 24 hours) - even if they had made only 3-4 edits. The issue is bypassing the warning escalation and the block escalation, by using the "vandalism only account" definition because those 3-4 edits were the account's only contributions. TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many pages would a user have to move to "HAGGAR" before you think it would be appropriate to consider blocking them as a possible vandalism-only account? How many warnings should/must they be given before they can be blocked? Keep in mind that most auto-warning software won't issue more than one warning every 10 seconds, and Grawp can move pages at the rate of about one every 5 seconds. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. Just to clarify, the issue I am raising here is that the warning escalation process is often being ignored because all of an account's edits are vandalism, even if it is only half a dozen in a short period of time. It is also correct that such accounts are getting indef blocked. There are good reasons why we have the escalation process for warnings and also for extending blocks for repeat offenders (rather than going straight to an indef block) - as pointed out above, an indef blocked user is only actually autoblocked for 24 hours anyway (vandal or otherwise). My main concern is that we seem to be significantly circumventing policy and usual practice by use of the "vandalism only account" definition. It would perhaps not be too bad if the definition covered the occassional account, but the issue here is that it seems to cover almost every single new vandal/test account because the first few edits by almost every new vandalism account are vandalism/tests. If we start blocking these without the usual warning escalation and start blocking them indefinitely, then we are pretty much doing that for every vandal account - which, I would suggest, is a very significant change to policy/practice - not one that I completely disagree with, but one that should be discussed. Looking forward to any further thoughts. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally will only block a user at AIV if: They've had a level 4 warning and continued to vandalize past that, OR it's an account (not an IP) that very clearly isn't here to help - repeated creation of nonsense/attack pages, long string of vandalism that goes faster than we can revert, etc. If they don't meet one of these two, I leave an {{AIV}} comment. I have, too, noticed that admins have been a little too trigger happy of late. Just today, an IP had been given only two real warnings and a "that was your third vandal edit, I'm reporting you" and was blocked. IP's definitely need at least three warnings before we block them, unless there's an extensive history of vandalism, which in this case the block log was empty. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can attest to having seen this, too. I personally am pretty strict when reporting vandals, but I will rarely start at anything higher than a level two warning. I'll only start at a level three warning if there have been several instances of blatant vandalism that was reverted without warning, or if the vandalism is particularly serious. Only in extreme cases would I ever give an only warning. In fact, I've only ever done that with this user, who made a personal attack (against a person with an identity disclosed in the edit) that required oversight.

But what I'm getting at here is that I, for pretty much 99% of cases, follow warning escalation. This is, in my interpretation, the correct way to go about things. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember from when I first became an admin, I followed the example of many other administrators who would indef-block a newly created account if their only edits were vandalism, and if they had been warned that what they were doing was wrong, and then continued. Lots of new users make testing edits... some make semi-innocuous ones, and others make more vandlism-like edits. Once they've made their first tests, though, and if they've been warned that you can't do that on Wikipedia, I remember pretty consistently seeing that if the behaviour continued, they would be indefinitly blocked. Perhaps we are not assuming good faith in them, but if someone truly makes a few first test edits that are vandalism, but wants to be a constrictive editor, conceptually they'd cease once they were warned about it. If not, they appear to just be there for disruption. What that meant to say, however, was that I learned that attitude by watching, whether or not it was actually the best way. Just some thoughts... I definitly think that this is an important issue that should be addressed, so that there is consistently, and so that we both stop disruptive editors from messing with Wikipedia and don't needlessly block those who could be productive contributors. -- Natalya 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I'm one of the people who WILL report an IP if I warn them, check their contribs, and find nothing but vandalism. Here's my thinking: One, if a user comes in here to screw around without an account, and bops around from page to page for half-an-hour putting "Barney is TEH GAYYYY!!!!!11!!1!" and the like, I highly doubt that they're warming up their typing fingers for a nice long session of productive editing. Second: Blocks are preventative, yes? If it's RECENT vandalism (and yes, I'm sure that if you go back into my contribs you'll easily find instances where they weren't recent at all--I'll get to that in a minute) then the best way to stop them is a short block. Third: IMHO, it's probably BITE-ier to block a registered account than an IP, under these circumstances--IPs. after all, are much more transitory identifiers, and if a user screws up under one IP, he can always redeem himself, if he's so inclined, once his DHCP lease expires. A named account, though, will always carry that block. Finally--yes, there's an element of frustration here. I HAVE been known to report non-recent attacks, simply based on the following thought process: oh, here's an obvious vandal edit...warn...let's see what else they've been up to...ten other bad edits? WTF?? (clicks AIV bookmark). I try to keep that to a minimum, but as I'm sure everyone will wholeheartedly agree, vandal-fighting is tedious and frustrating. Sometimes, you vent a little...and in this case, by "you", I mean, "me". Done now....Gladys J Cortez 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're so thick that you need multiple chances to understand that replacing a page with 'YOU'RE A FAGGOT!' is wrong, I don't want you here. HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends somewhat upon the type of vandalism. I rarely block at all, but yesterday I blocked as vandalism-only a site that had made 2 repeated serious BLP attack pages in 24 hours and nothing else. Sometime we need to send a very strong message. Usually , though we don't--we want to encourage people who are playing around--even playing around foolishly & harmfully as in the above example--to come back and work constructively. I check back on the accounts, ip or named, that I have sent serious warnings to, and very few of them have ever come back and done more damage. DGG (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree that we want to encourage the play-around-ers to come back and edit productively, the question that pops up in my skeptical little heart is "...but seriously, do you think they will?" To me, if you have sincerely good intentions, you're likely to start off in a manner that demonstrates them; if you start off in a joking, screw-around manner, the message you're sending is I don't take this place, or the work that's done here, seriously. And those are the users who concern me. (Is there, other than a slight reluctance to AGF, anything fundamentally flawed in this view?)Gladys J Cortez 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly understand where you are coming from Gladys, I do tend to think that that is a flawed point of view. Any of us who have done vandalism patrol are obviously committed to this project and take it rather seriously. This makes it more difficult for us to consider the mindset of those who fall within that enormous universe of people who don't take it seriously for whatever reason. Such people might include a 14 year old who vandalizes for laughs with her friends; but who in a couple of years might be doing research for a high school project, learn something interesting that isn't on Wikipedia, and want to insert it. Or it might include two very smart friends I went out for drinks with last week, both highly educated professionals who are contemptuous of Wikipedia and might (for all I know) make nonsense anonymous edits when they are drunk late at night; but who might come around in the end and start contributing some of their considerable knowledge to the project.

Sure, there are a lot of vandals who will never be anything but that, but we should also remember that most of the rest of the world does not take Wikipedia so seriously and that that's hardly a sin. Rather than perma-blocking a new account after a few unhelpful edits, we would do better to take the high road by continually warning the user and blocking only after the last warning has been received, preferably for a short period of time. Who knows, maybe some of those folks will be impressed by the commitment so many have to the project—sometimes when reverting vandalism within seconds I can't help but think that the newbie vandal must be somewhat amazed at how quickly their damage was undone—and will feel some contrition after wrecking the work of others and only being met in response with relatively polite notes to stop their behavior. Even if only 1 in 100 reacts that way, and even if only half of those go on to make positive contributions, isn't that utterly worth it? We should be thinking of Wikipedia as a project that will last for 10, 20, or even 100 years, and in order to keep it going we will need a steady stream of new volunteers. Instead of thinking of new vandal users as bad folks trying to break the 'pedia (even though some of them will be that), it's better if we think of them as people who have come far enough to hit the "edit" button and who might be converted into productive editors. Indef blocking every new account that makes a few vandal edits or blocking IP's without giving them a final warning do not strike me as effective long-term strategies, and we lose very little (basically just time and a bit of extra effort) by being courteous and assuming good faith till we're practically blue in the face.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace puts it very well. Unfortunately, it is also possible to go blue in the face trying to convince people who have the other attitude, best summed up by the comment further up in the thread: "If you're so thick [insert random vandal edit] I don't want you here." It is a misunderstanding of the many reasons people have for experimenting, and the wide range in ages, which impacts on the way they experiment. Also, many people experiment with the warnings, and test to see if they really will get blocked. That should be considered, though the best advice if you end up testing a new account to destruction, is to get a new one, and start off by admitting that you were editing under a previous account. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of "to indef or not to indef" appears regularly at WT:AIV. the most recent such conversation is the three threads starting here: [2]. It might be worth a read for those interested in this topic. Part of that thread goes into "vandalism" vs. "test" edits; I agree that we should extend good faith in differentiating between the two. My comments below are for accounts that I judge to be "vandalism".

Indef blocking an account that has, so far, been used only for vandalism (as opposed to test edits), without the 4-level warning sequence, is by far the most efficient use of our time. Being blocked indef does not give you cancer, or prevent your graduation from college, or go in your "permanent record". It is not "unfair". It protects the encyclopedia. For the tiny (and it is tiny) percentage of people who want another chance, there's {{unblock}}, there's {{2ndchance}}, and there's the option of creating a new account when the autoblock expires. Read the mediawiki pages used for blocked accounts; it's extremely gentle and AGF'y.

Let's take Bigtimepeace's guesstimate; let's say 1 in 100 indef blocked users would have eventually contributed constructively. You have to balance that against the extra time it take editors to report, and admins to re-block, the other 99 vandals we've given a free second chance to. I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who vandalizes several pages, and would have turned things around after a 4th warning or a short block, and yet still can't be bothered to request unblocking. In fact, that's the perfect way to identify that 1%: people who request unblocking, and are willing to jump thru the hoop of {{2ndchance}}. I suggest that everyone who is concerned that we are indef blocking potentially good contributers patrol the unblock request category, and hand out second chances to those you think are not a lost cause. But it makes no sense to to me to block an account that is 99% sure to be an unrepentant vandal for 24 hours, only to block them for longer next time. --barneca (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are those who due to ignorance or youthfulness, don't get it, and think vandalising is a big lark. What we have to make clear is that anyone, if they later become serious, can start over with a new account. To that end, the actual block message should never send signals that someone is permanently verboten. We have banning for that. Carcharoth (talk)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

It seems pretty clear to me, and unblocking is prominently mentioned. I can't find the mediawiki message right now and have to run (surely someone can add a link here for me?), but it is very gentle, very easy to read. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The visible bit of MediaWiki:Blockedtext is easy to read, but click the three "show" links and then see how large the message gets. And then try reading and understanding all that without giving up and walking away. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the fact that blatant vandals can become productive members of the community. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence to suggest such a rosy outlook. It's a little naïve (and I mean that will all due respect). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If they can't even be bothered to read the unblock instructions, then isn't giving up and walking away forever exactly what we want them to do? I don't know, those instructions look really well thought out and clear to me. The only real problem is they're long. We're trying to identify people who, in spite of vandalizing, can be turned into productive editors. Are these the type of people who aren't going to read something because it's long? --barneca (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one way to find out. Start a new account, get blocked, try actually going through the various stages of getting unblocked, and see what the success rate is. Or don't even bother with the first step - just asked to be blocked and then sit down and actually try getting unblocked and see what you think of how things look and work from the other side. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Flawed experiment; your average Wikipedia administrator is going to be far, far more familiar with the Wikipedia system than your run-of-the-mill vandal. You'd have to introduce a new person to Wikipedia for the express purpose of blocking them and having them request an unblock for it to be effective. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is there any chance some of us lowly editors could get some help with our problems? I mean isn't that what this noticeboard is supposed to be for? There are several issues below that need attention and in the last few hours all of the edits to this page have been either this mindnumbing conversation or best wishes to an outgoing admin. Little help? -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• {ec} Most experinaced vandal patrolers will agree with me, there are two types of new user vandalism: Type A and Type B users. Type A are your classic noobs who have no clue what they are doing, but their edits are considered vandalism. Type B is what the Vandal only Account (VoA). their edits clearly show a malice in their editing patterns, contain the standard vandal insults, are un-communicative, and ignore warnings. Type A, will normally become good users, while type B is blocked on sight. β^{_{command 2}} 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So are inexperienced vandal patrollers, who are not aware of this distinction, blocking type A on sight based on observing others blocking type B on sight? Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • inexperienced vandal patrollers don't block; admins block. I, and everyone I am aware of at WP:AIV, look to see whether it's type A or B. Watch the action at WP:AIV sometime; lots of reports get declined. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, and I see precious little evidence that we're promoting idiots to adminship. Type B accounts should be blocked on sight, and often times, you can see the pattern (and where it's going) well before they've garnered a substantial number of edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor registers with a name "lkusflsfksibniwbncibiwckn kbnwec8kcbscdkbsd", and then makes 25 bad faith vandalistic edits. How many warnings do you want them to get? Do you want them blocked for vandalism, or blocked for username violation? And what kind of vandalism are we talking about; adding "dan is gay" to my userpage (not serious), or blp vio "x was accused but not convicted of having sex with children"? (very serious)? Just checking. Please disregard this, Dan Beale-Cocks 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already typed a response to this, so I'm not going to disregard it. :P
Agreed, sometimes the full "path" of warnings aren't needed. I've blocked IPs for 3 hours without warning before, simply because I could tell that it was a one-off vandalism spree done by some bored kid who was still online. The short block killed his fun, and minimized damage. Would a warning have worked? Maybe, but a block definitely worked, and I've got better things to do than coddle vandals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes just following them around playing "rollback" with them works better. They get bored and give up and go away, and you avoid filling in any paperwork! :-) (Only for non-serious vandalism, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sometimes just using rollback works. I don't have the time to follow them around all day, though; if it's obvious they're not going to be productive, why allow them to continue vandalizing? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If an account has only bad faith edits it can be blocked on sight without warnings. There is simply no point in allowed a disruptive user who has never been constructive to continue. The block notice tells them what they did wrong, but they already know what they did wrong because it is only bad faith edits that get this kind of block. If they truly repent then they can use the unblock template, or in a day or two the autoblock will expire and they can create a new account.

Now it is true that not all users who need a block should be reported to AIV which deals with a very specific type of problem user with very specific criteria. As to if AIV should be used to report vandal only accounts that have not been warned is something for WT:AIV to decide, but it is our current and best practice to block these users on sight. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with EVula on this one. AIV only rarely deals (in my experience at least) with users that haven't been sufficiently warned. Of course, administrators sometimes step in before this is even needed and block the accounts when it is clear the only intent is to disrupt the workings and readings of Wikipedia. I do this, the blocking should suffice when reasonable grounds for a block is visible. If this is to be changed, WT:AIV is the best venue for that. On a slightly different point, how come some IPs get blocked as vandalism only accounts? Surely that's only supposed to be used on clear, and indefinitely blocked registered users. Rudget (Help?) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think sometimes admins remove names from report boards such as AIV or UAA because they are following the protocols for that boards to much. Some blocks are just common sense, and even if the board requires a full set of warnings and a court order, should just be blocked anyways. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe exprienced admins can often recognize a vandalism only account from only a few edits. For example look for an apparent understading of how Wikipedia works unusual for someone new but making only harmful edits, or new accounts continuing the pattern of previously blocked vandals. I agree indef block as vandalism only account should be made only to registerd accounts, and if ther is reasonable benifit of a doubt that the account is just a newbie testing things out something less drastic is in order. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to give every gwap vandal 4 warnings before blocking now? β^{_{command 2}} 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. What point are you trying to make? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly heartened by the answers above, but can't say I'm especially surprised either (I think my view is the minority one among those who deal with vandalism, but oh well). Yes, it's often easy to spot folks who are here to vandalize, and blocking sure does stop them. Simply giving a warning often stops them too though, and if it's their first warning it includes a "welcome" message that is a bit nicer (and probably more surprising) than a "you're blocked" notice. Anyone who does recent changes patrol and leaves warnings can attest to the fact that very often the first warning (be it after the first, third, or fifth vandal edit) is often the last. God knows how many IP's or new accounts went on a mini-vandalism spree, were warned once, and then never vandalized again (e.g. this edit I made two edits ago). If we can deter a bunch of vandalism (and I think it's inescapable that we do) without leaping to the block button, why not do that?

To those who would say "but why not just block them instead?" I would say the following. First off, putting the smack down with a block right off the bat might actually encourage the person to come back and vandalize again ("I'll show Captain Admin!", that thing Newton said, etc.) whereas a simple "Hi there! Thanks for stopping by, please don't do that again" is a rather boring reply and may cause the vandal to throw in the towel since they only provoked a mild mannered response (of course many times it doesn't, but I'm trying to think against the grain here). Also, while it's true that a lot of AIV reports are declined and rightfully so (which is good), it's also true that a lot of crap AIV reports are made which is probably partially a function of how block-happy we are (not good). If admins are willing to indef a new account after two "Bob is gay!" edits, why wouldn't new recent changes patrollers assume that they should report an IP vandal to AIV after deleting a couple of things from an article and without warning them first? Similarly, anyone who has done RC patrol has seen any number of crap "rv vandalism" edits—situations where vandal patrollers revert IP contributions practically on sight without taking the extra 5-10 seconds to actually read what the IP did.

I've done a good amount of RC patrol and think it's an important part of what we do here (unfortunately), but sometimes I worry that we worry so much about the barbarians at the gate (which, some editors will readily admit, can come to mean practically all anonymous users) that we develop an unhealthy siege mentality. I'm staking out a fairly extreme position here in part because I believe it and in part because I think it needs to be said, but I would hope those who advocate the "block on sight, screw the warnings" approach see how that method can have real drawbacks and that what I am saying here is not completely insane. There's far too much of an us-against-the-world approach in some of the comments above, and an underlying tone of vandals-are-bad-people-who-can't-be-reformed which I find troublesome. Don't worry though, I'll go off and block some vandals in the next 24 hours to atone for being such a weak-kneed appeaser.  :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best-argued and most coherently considered piece of opinion I've read on wikipedia for many months, and really, I urge people to take serious note of it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal making use of Twinkle

A recent sock of a vandal has been using Twinkle for disruptive editing (by reverting legitimate edits as vandalism). See [these contribs]. Is their anyway we could limit Javascript based applications such as Twinkle to established users?--Urban Rose 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Anyone can edit their own monobook file. Perhaps Twinkle could disable itself if the user doesn't have X number of edits, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Twinkle from Gadgets, at least for now. While a sock could conceivably add Twinkle, this creates an edit trail, and users could conceivably track such changes by watching Monobook changes. Another concern hat I've heard raised is that it's impossible to disable the Twinkle gadget for users who have abused it (we can protect monobook.js if necessary, but can't change their gadget preferences). I welcome any discussion regarding this, and whether it should stay removed or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too easily an abused too that would be impossible to remove without blocking. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent decision. I've been wondering for a few days where the best place was to make the suggestion to remove Twinkle from gadgets. In this particular case, of course, it wouldn't have helped (blocking was the only answer), but in general this is spot on. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with new users using Twinkle, so I whole-heartedly support this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as it can substantially limit vandalism without any great cost. (It's easy enough to manually add it to monobook). --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Remember the dot re-added TW to the gadgets list with the reasoning that it was "now fixed in Internet Explorer"... I'm not sure he understood it was removed due to abuse. I've re-removed it and left him a message informing him of this discussion. krimpet✽ 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially objected to add twinkle to gadgets, per the apparent lack of moderation functionality, so I'm fine with it removed from gadgets. _→AzaToth 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above also. It never should have been there in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with it in gadgets there is no way to stop abuse of the tool. Where was the original discussion to have it added to gadgets? Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have the Twinkle gadget automatically disable itself if the user's monobook.js is protected. That would allow it to be controlled without requiring users to understand JavaScript. Outright removing the gadget is not the only option we have. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree. This is a temporary solution to the problem, and can easily be undone if there's a better way to handle it. But until then, I think the gadget should stay removed. Ral315 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That only safe guards against users who have already abused the tool. I'd rather it not be abused at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to prevent Twinkle from being abused. Greater availability of Twinkle should actually have a positive impact on vandal control because more users will have the vandal-fighting tools. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just block the user, rather than disabling Twinkle? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is disabling Twinkle; any user can still install it. However, the concerns about allowing anyone to surreptitiously enable it are very, very valid, and this isn't the first time I've seen them voiced. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment; I'm on wikibreak. Twinkle's code is open-source and publicly available, so anyone can implement it unrevokably via, say, Greasemonkey. The only way to forcibly stop Twinkle abuse is by blocking, and that's probably the approach that we should use. Perhaps I should edit MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown to add "Abusing editing tool" or some such. We should re-add Twinkle to the list of Gadgets, perhaps with a warning. Nihiltres^{t.l} 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have code ready that will disable potentially abusive gadgets like Twinkle if the user's monobook.js is protected. This will give us finer, though as Nihiltres pointed out, not perfect, defenses against problematic users. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just block them. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the best bet mate, some times a person is truly just testing out Twinkle and they do not mean harm. Obviously this one did mean harm. But we do not know that of all. A block is not something that should be used for something like this unless we know. The best is Remember the dot's suggestion. Rgoodermote  20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nihiltres, I think that the issue is that simply checking a box in Gadgets installs Twinkle, without knowledge of how/what its functionary is, is the issue. It's not the same as if someone is mucking about in the monobook and figures out what javascripts are for. So therein lies the potential for abuse if it remains a gadget. To be fair, I haven't noticed a rise in Twinkle abuse since it was listed in gadgets. People will abuse what they can not matter the circumstances. Keegan^talk 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to be unsure about what a button marked "Rollback" does. But if you want, we can have a big fat disclaimer next to the Twinkle gadget. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoroughly blunt opinion: if someone doesn't know how to install Twinkle manually, they're more likely to screw something up severely. I see the installation as a nice little valve to make sure that Twinkle users have at least some measure of intelligence (or, to sound less dickish, a measure of proficiency).
The chief problem with Twinkle is that people are using it to edit, which isn't what it was developed for; it's goal (as far as I know) was to help streamline some of the more complicated processes we have (such as an easy way of reporting users to AIV), but editors should still know how to do those things without the tool. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, to the both of you, the point of my last line is that most Twinkle misuse is not by accident or misunderstanding but of intent. I agree with EVula of the goal of automated tools. VandalProof, the forerunner to Twinkle came along about six months after I started editing. I had already learned how to make reports by hand and that eased the process of minding which tab I'm on in my browser, which page I'm on, and is my markup correct (I truly suck at anything related to markup, see my typo above. I'm surprised you all let me edit.) Twinkle is a "net positive" but will be gamed, I support removing it from the gadgets. You can put a big disclaimer, but that won't prevent misuse. Keegan^talk 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the contributions Urban Rose has linked to, I see lots of page-move vandalism but no abuse of Twinkle. The edits the vandal made using Twinkle appear to be valid reversions of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.245 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is vandalizing then block them - don't deprive the rest of us of a useful tool. Bloody annoying and inconsiderate in my opinion. The comment about installing it manually being some sort of intelligence test is downright patronising - one doesn't, and shouldn't, need any understanding of how those wretched monobook things work in order to be a productive and intelligent editor. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be limited to autoconfirmed user, by using some JavaScript like wgUserGroups.join(' ').match(/\bautoconfirmed\b/). — Dispenser 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? How many people's preferences did we just forcibly modify because one user (a blocked user I add) abused something? Shall we limit pagemoves to admin-only, now, too? Why don't we just lock down the whole site, to prevent vandalism? If a user is blatantly abusing the project, we just block them and be done with it. The only permanent damage here is the damage we've done to ourselves. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea of limiting it to autoconfirmed users. The code for this is simple, the requirement will deter all but the most persistent vandals who are determined to get their hands on the tool no matter what, and it will let regular users have the tool without trouble. If a user abuses it and refuses to stop, then just block them. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the twinkle talk page about integrating MediaWiki roll-back into twinkle, this would disable a lot of the abuse potential as a gadget, as it would remove the revert function from anyone without roll-back permission. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct link is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#Non-Admin_Native_Rollback_Implementation. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have slept on this, and am still angry about the removal of this gadget. The removal just shows the contempt which some admins have for the rest of us. Why not disable all editing for everyone because some people misuse editing tools? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone is vandalizing and does not respond to appropriate warnings then block them - don't punish the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is still usable by anyone with an account with our without its presence in the gadgets. Viridae^Talk 11:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So removing it from gadgets has zero protective effect, and just pisses off those of us who don't want to fiddle with monobook stuff. Great. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't that hard to install manually. A notice to users not just removing it & leave us wondering woudl have been nice, but it's not that restrictive. I has only quoted it out of my monobook as I wanted to keep my settings so I had it a bit easier but a one line copy & paste then refreshign is not that hard!. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So like I said, zero protective effect by removing the gadget. I have never found any monobook stuff easy, it is obscure and fiddly and never seems to work straight off, and you end up with a page full of weird stuff that you have absolutely no understanding of. Making things harder for honest editors is about the worst possible thing to do if you are serious about promoting good editing and discouraging vandalism. If someone is misusing editing tools, then they can be warned and blocked as appropriate, or is that too complicated for our lords and masters? DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that after all the positive response to making Twinkle a gadget, one admin decided to remove this because of one vandal. I really don't know what else to say about that. Regarding the idea in general, Twinkle's edits are just as easily undone as any other. Vandals making use of it has no effect on how we fight them, so removing the gadget does nothing to protect Wikipedia. It just punishes everyone else. In addition, all gadgets capable of producing edits directly can be used for malicious purposes. Why not remove popups too then, or even hotcat? Stop trying to prevent malice using blanket restrictions. We're fighting vandalism just fine the way things are. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

PS I just realized this is the same admin who's been going around full-protecting templates "just to be safe" [3] (all of which were undone shortly afterwards). This, too, needs to be undone. As User:Remember the dot points out above, making Twinkle more widely available can only have a net-positive effect. It's a vandalism-fighting tool, and regardless of the one person (or few people) we see abusing it, far more use it as intended. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:28, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion. This seems to have been an overreaction, and should be reverted as soon as possible. Removing it from gadgets doesn't fix the problem at all, and simply inconveniences legitimate users. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not wheelwar about this :) I think that blocking the users abusing twinkle is like using a big hammer to stop a fly (just look at the few occurrences that happened last week), I therefore see the point of not having it as a gadget. I however agree that removing it unilaterally was a terrible idea (think of all the users that are discovering it is no longer working and wonder why). I still think we need to have the ability to turn twinkle off if needed, maybe by adding a variable to the monobook? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but where was the discussion (and consensus) for putting Twinkle in the Gadgets in the first place? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that people are upset that Twinkle's been removed from gadgets; if there were a way to disable it on a user-by-user basis, or notify everyone who had it installed that I was removing it, I would've done so. However, there was never a consensus, as far as I can tell, for adding it to Gadgets, and given that it's easily added to Special:Mypage/monobook.js (details at WP:TWINKLE), I think that the benefits of this removal outweigh the problems. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle was added back around when gadgets first began. There was a brief discussion about Twinkle here. The benefits of the removal definitely do not outweigh the problems. If this were a simple removal of the preferences option, that wouldn't be so terrible. But you've effectively pulled the rug out from under all the people who already had Twinkle installed through the gadget, and there's no telling how many that was -- all because of a single vandal. And again, people having access to Twinkle doesn't make it any easier to vandalize or any harder to roll back said vandalism. Just because someone uses a certain method to for malicious purposes doesn't mean we then take it away from everyone. People can vandalize articles a million other ways -- such as using the edit button. Again this needs to be reverted immediately. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:58, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Site wide matters that affect all users in such a sweeping way are not the provenance of any one lone admin to decide, ever. The gadget page should be brought back to the pre-Ral change status quo for a proper discussion of this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break [Twinkle]

After reading this I have gotten the conclusion that there is an logical consensus that there is no net gain to have TW removed from gadgets, so I made the decission to re-add it. _→AzaToth 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - unfortunately it does not appear to be working for me. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work because East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted it despite there being an ongoing debate about whether it should have been removed from gadgets. DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that in his contribs or logs. Where? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

18:45 on 29th April, I found it by watchlisting MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js and looking at how it appears in my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this link will shew it - [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it, and I asked East to reverse the deletion as there was no basis or mandate for any one admin to unilaterally decide this for all Wikipedia users. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that page had been deleted, have restored it. _→AzaToth 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I know that this is not the first time that Twinkle as a gadget has been referenced as being a potential problem. The fact that there was practically no discussion to "install" it in the first place compounds this situation (I could probably look for the diff if I tried hard enough...). I'm strongly of the opinion that it needs to stay out of the available gadgets. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive140#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, while not about Twinkle as a gadget, is highly critical of the effects of too-new users utilizing Twinkle for all their edits. Quite frankly, I don't like lowering the bar of entry for Twinkle use to the point where someone can only function on the site by using Twinkle; such users are bound to screw up, and screw up hard. (I've already seen tons of crappy username reports to WP:UAA that are done with Twinkle by largely ignorant editors) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#Twinkles Gone Wild is another somewhat relevant topic, although much more hilariously named than the one above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Which was about someone who had it in monobook, and in which you suggested blocking if someone persisted in misusing it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you missed the part about forcibly removing it from someone's monobook was useless as they could enable it via the gadgets. I also didn't present it in the manner that you apparently interpreted it; I was presenting it as evidence that Twinkle abuse is a very real concern. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the gadget so that it will now only work for autoconfirmed users. This is about the same as what we do for other semi-powerful tools such as Special:MovePage.

By the way, protecting a user's monobook.js isn't a perfect solution either. They could just change their skin and add Twinkle to another JavaScript file. They could also make the script work through GreaseMonkey. Or they could just make disruptive edits manually. In short, if a user is being disruptive, then they're probably going to continue to be disruptive even if we revoke Twinkle to the best of our ability. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I consider locking a monobook to be enforcing a decree that the user shouldn't be using a script because they're being disruptive, but still making positive contributions (read: someone whose heart is in the right place, but is too dense to realize that they're screwing up). Yes, it's not a perfect solution for the very reasons you listed, but most of the time, people aren't going to change their theme just to get around it (and they'd promptly be nailed to the wall if they did).
As for your change to Twinkle itself... that's a step in the right direction, but I still feel that people who can't edit without Twinkle have no business installing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can edit without twinkle but you apparently think I shouldn't have it either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you completely lost and unable to do much of anything on here without Twinkle? If not, I'm not discussing you. If so, I am, and I feel that you should spend more time getting familiar with the site without automated tools. I'll readily admit that I'm a total elitist when it comes to this; I've garnered 26k+ edits (including deleted edits) without any automated tools, and feel that I'm a better editor for it. I'm equally willing to admit that it's my opinion, and mine alone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well able to edit without Twinkle, I also have no understanding and little confidence in editing my monobook, and am very reluctant to try. Gadgets are a boon to editors who do not wish to fart around with their monobooks. You appear to be the only person referring to these alleged people unable to do anything without twinkle. Twinkle as a gadget is useful to many. Editors who abuse any editing tools may be warned, reverted, blocked as appropriate. Removing the gadget (which is what this thread is about) is no substitute for admins just doing their jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from; I never said anything like that, and can't see where I even alluded to it. I'm perfectly aware that I'm the only one stating my opinion, which is why I'm not saying anything along the lines of "everything should be done my way". If you're not comfortable editing your monobook, that's your prerogative, but I feel you'd be a better editor if you address your ignorances (not intended to be an insult, though I can see how it can be interpreted as one). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

errr - "No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from"? - I have never suggested that you said anything of the sort. Maybe you are hallucinating. As for monobooks - what would make Wikipedia editors better is a reduction in the excessive amount of obscure techy type stuff required for some functionality. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The only reason we call it an automated tool is because it isn't built in to MediaWiki. The undo function, variables, templates, and even the ref tag all perform a kind of automated function. There's no reason to say that use of Twinkle gives people any less experience than another editing function. Reverting vandalism, warning users, and nominating things for deletion are all things that help people learn about Wikipedia, whether they use Twinkle to perform those things or not. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Twinkle has had autoconfim check for a long time now, so such check isn't needed. _→AzaToth 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO there's no reason to worry about revoking Twinkle. If a user is being disruptive, they should be blocked, no matter what method they're using to vandalize pages. The only situation where revoking twinkle would be useful is when someone is being disruptive unintentionally by using Twinkle, and I don't think we've seen a situation like that yet. If it happens, monobook.js can be protected -- and chances are if the user didn't understand how to use Twinkle, then they won't know about any of the workarounds Remember The Dot suggested. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've removed the redundant autoconfirmed check from the Twinkle gadget. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone is that concerned about Twinkle being a gadget, they should start a discussion at Village pump proposals, as is likewise the current method for suggesting a new gadget. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:49, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

This is a more general issue than Twinkle. Many gadgets are liable to abuse, the find and replace of wikiEd could be a right pain, but rather than removing them all would it not be better for admins to be able to lock out a users gadgets, and possibly protect all there .js pages with a switch? Treated the same way as blocking; Allow free use, if abused then they are locked out (probably longer periods e.g. 1 week minimum) this would reduce the potential for abuse and allow the rest of us to get on with editing. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea: how about we start a discussion at VPP for adding it, since as near as I can tell, there wasn't one in the first place? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to do the same thing for every other gadget on Gadgets? For that matter, was there a discussion for Gadgets to be added? I never even knew the feature existed until yesterday when I found this thread. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

VPP is the wrong place and near useless anyway as no one watches it relative to the size of the actual Wikipedia editor population; you'll get at best a tiny, tiny subset of the population there. Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals is the right venue apparently but appears dead too. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia noticeboards suffer from the same problem - none are used by more than a tiny subset of editors. The Admin noticeboards are used by a tiny proportion of admins, and an even smaller proportin of non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kiril Lokshin's proposal at Wikipedia:Governance reform is a step to change that problem. Too many decisions of major importance and impact are made by too many tiny often self-appointed groups, in tiny little venues. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks interesting and makes some good points. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

TWINKLE should not be a gadget. If TWINKLE is a gadget, we can't prevent people from using it. If it's installed in monobook.js, we can at least take a reasonable step toward doing so, by protecting their monobook.js. When TWINKLE was disabled as a gadget, I did this to prevent Heliac (talk · contribs) from returning and abusing it more. (I also blocked him, but if he comes back and resumes editing, I don't want him to be twinkling all over the place when he does so.)

In addition, I disagree with the idea that TWINKLE should be considered a part of the MediaWiki interface like the undo button is. Perhaps TWINKLE is just an interface for speeding up editing when used correctly, but the way many people use it is as a substitute for understanding policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Should whoever opened this poll be slapped with a wikitrout?

Honestly, we seem to have lost the ability to discuss anything these days. Have we now decided that polling is the new consensus??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody said it was. It is a way to gauge consensus, though. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support _→AzaToth 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  I don't know if this was your intention, but this certainly made me laugh. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse upon specific flavouring. Rudget (Help?) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should slap them with some sort of generic twinkle template, personally. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user back again?

Those with a flair for detective work and/or a familiarity with banned user Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be interested in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd), jsut in case I'm completely mistaken in my suspicions. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - per the subequently filed RFCU case - Alison ^❤ 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection of Mother

So I was looking through the page history of the Mother article when I realized that, in the past month, it's been subject to some significant vandalism by a wide variety of new and anonymous editors. Looking back through the protection log, I found a number of attempts to try and stem the tide with short-term semi-protects; the most recent expired (not coincidentally) about a month ago. Based on these factors, I went ahead and semi-protected the page indefinitely. Since I made the call outside of the normal WP:RFPP process, though, I thought it best to post it here for the sake of transparency and further review--if anyone feels that the indefinite semi is unwarranted, feel free to shorten or remove it entirely. Thanks! --jonny-mt 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

About three vandalism edits a day. Dunno, I think so long as it's not BLP-related, it's not a major concern, but it depends, I suppose. Ral315 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does vandalism of this article pick up around Mother's Day? That might be one explaination, since that's coming up in the US. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that. It makes sense that the recent spate might be because of the upcoming holiday (which reminds me; I need to order some flowers), but there seems to be a more or less constant level of vandalism thanks to the popular pasttime of dissing matriarchs--a look at almost any point in the history shows vandalistic edits. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to knocking it down to a month or so to see if Mother's Day is indeed the cause or not and then reconsidering indefinite semi-protection if this doesn't do the trick. --jonny-mt 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that history of steady vandalism over time, I can't disagree. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and knocked it down to a month, then, and left a note in the log that the next semi-protect should be indefinite. Thanks for the input, all! --jonny-mt 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor check on IP pages

I noticed today, that the TOR check on Template:Anontools, no longer works, and, the service that it refers to is also not up. For instance, see this example. Anyone have any good ideas on what to replace it with? Template:Anontools appears on the bottom of every IP talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[5] - since it only accepts POST queries, all that's needed is a simple Javascript page, maybe on the toolserver, to bounce people there. Plus, you can check individual nodes' exit policies regarding Wikiepdia (208.80.152.2:80). east.718 at 13:44, May 1, 2008

It's a little rough around the edges as I just whipped it up over the last 20 minutes, but here ya go. :) krimpet✽ 13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Threw something together to interface with kgprog: [6] east.718 at 14:05, May 1, 2008

I too, put something together :) [7] SQL^{Query me!} 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, with three good options here, which should go into the anontools template? Or is it worth having multiple tests (sort of a belt and suspenders approach)? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks Like I'm slow on the draw, the link in the template has been updated - to East718's version, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, however, the bright green there is a little hard to read (for me, course, I am a little biased :P )... SQL^{Query me!} 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy8709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They seem to be a little upset with me. They would appear to be 66.103.50.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who just got blocked by me for edits like this. Rather than react to it and have someone complain I was just seeking revenge I bring it here. I would have left the comments on my talk page but seeing as it includes stuff about another editor I removed it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A long-overdue indef block as a vandal-only account has been applied. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost password

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make such an inquiry, and do direct me to the right place if that's the case. I recently lost the password for my main account, User:Nick Graves, and requested that a new password be emailed to me. Unfortunately, it hasn't shown up in my inbox. I've since been using an old account for edits. Am I just SOoL recovering my main account, or is there a way to get me back into it? Thanks. Rohirok (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a spam filter, check that. Did you specify an email address in your preferences? If you haven't, and answer yes, try again. If you have, or answer no, either switch off the filter or give up (respectively). Try WP:HD next time...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As you confirmed on your main account that you used to use this account, if all else fails you may be able to beg a developer to help you out, but they generally have better things to do. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Teaching admins how to deal with disputes

As another project from the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, we've been working on education, as in teaching new admins how to deal with disputes. As part of this, we have a new page we'd like to add to the "School for new admins", which is at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. This page doesn't cover all types of disputes (which is one of the reasons for the Working Group!). There are still some other mechanisms which we're debating in the Group wiki. But we think that this provides a pretty good summary of existing methodologies. The page has not been formally linked in to the School yet, but I'd appreciate if other admins who have experience with dispute resolution, could look things over and offer comments. You're welcome to edit the page directly, or if you just have a tip you want to throw in, as "advice from a senior admin to a junior admin" (or even junior to junior!) feel free to add it to the "Tips" section on the page. More complex comments can of course be added to talk. Looking forward to your thoughts, Elonka 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Images proposal

I have made a new proposal regarding images here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#New_proposal_on_images - I would appreciate any comments, suggestions, advice etc. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock of banned user has returned; requesting block

24.15.123.48 needs another block for ban evasion. Was previously blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of community banned Nasz; see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.[8] Has returned to the same group of articles with edits that demonstrate the same agenda as previously. Please intervene with the tools. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly same editor, based on subject matter and content of edits. Blocked IP 6 months; seems static, but I hardly ever block an IP longer than that because of how little I understand how IP reassignment works. If someone wants to make it longer, they have 6 months to figure out how long. If you think it will get reassigned sooner, use your judgement on shortening, it's likely better than mine. --barneca (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like long enough. Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on racial discrimination in Wikipedia

Resolved

Wade Edwards and Malia Obama are kids of presidential candidates. Wade Edwards was not deleted even though it's a stub. Neither was Cate Edwards, which was subject to a AFD. However, it looks like Malia Obama, a girl and a black person is being deleted.

I can see why "other crap exists" is used. But we do need to make sure articles are treated equally. We should delete a black girl and keep a white boy. We should treat articles fairly and the SAME.

Help solve this problem. Suggestions? How do we ensure racial equality and gender equality? Watchingobama (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm I seriously do not see how that is evidence of racial discrimination :/ ...more like jumping to conclusions in my opinion. It also appears you are soapboxing about this matter on many different forums and I would suggest you to stop. This is not a matter that requires administrative attention.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -Emerson.

Wade and Cate have other reasons to be notable; Wade's death was constantly mentioned in the media and by Edwards, Cate is an adult who appears to have achieved some borderline notabilty of her own. Malia is a 9 year old kid. Not the same situation. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a "No Kids" rule. Watchingobama (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But we do have a You're not notable rule. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD tag removed, isn't this misconduct? Cate Edwards article has a AFD. Lots of support for AFD in March 2007. Lots of support for deletion of similar article on Malia Obama. So there is a reason to consider deletion of Cate. If AFD decides to keep, I'm cool with that but there should be a process. Otherwise, anyone who disagrees with an AFD will remove the tag.

See history of Cate Edwards. The person named G---- did it. I'm not trying to tattle on that person but I don't want to 3RR. Just put the AFD tag back. Watchingobama (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AFDs only last for 7 days. The one you were adding is closed. Nakon 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I reopened it because the old one was more than a year old. Graz11 deleted it. This is wrong because both that article and Malia Obama are similar yet the white girl's get kept but the black girl's looks like it will be deleted.Watchingobama (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - do you need a fifth person to point this out to you? Grsz^talk 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot reopen pre-existing AFDs. You need to create a new nomination.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD creation process seems to have confused Watchingobama[9] (and honestly, who can blame him for being confused), so I've left some step by step instructions on his talk page and also offered to file the AFD on his behalf if my step by step instructions aren't helpful enough.[10] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jack was blocked a couple of months back now as a self admitted sock of Moby Dick. Once he admitted it, there was only one course of action and that was an indef block. I've been in contact with him by email, and he's very interested in entering into a program of mentorship with me and would like to be unblocked. I did a lot of research into him when I blocked him, and although there were problems with previous accounts of his, the latest Jack Merridew account was actually fairly constructive and was certainly a a net positive for the project. I think with this account, he'd learnt from previous mistakes and although the socking was bad, it does give evidence that he is somewhat reformed. I'd therefore like to unban him and put him on a strict editing restriction as follows;

"Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a community editing restriction. He is required to use only one account and remain civil in all discussions. He must also refrain from interacting with White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in any discussion on the project. Any uninvolved administrator may block him for an appropriate length of time should he break any of his restrictions. Further more, he must enter into a mentorship program with Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

I'd appreciate thoughts on this, I honestly believe Jack still has a lot to give. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. He would also have to stick by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, but has privately told me he is quite happy to do this. I would be delighted to co-mentor here. His contributions under the Jack Merridew account, ignoring the fact that he was evading a ban, were constructive and I think he was unlucky to run into White Cat again. Quite frankly, he's far less of a POV-pusher than White Cat: t'would be silly to ban one but not the other. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent - I'd certainly appreciate the help from someone with such good experience with these kinds of users. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• If Ryan's prepared to give him another shot, I'm happy to go with his judgment (as usual). Bencherlite^Talk 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I think the JM account is proof itself that Davenbelle has reformed. Hell, Jack's positive contributions to me suggest he doesn't even need a mentorship. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I will be glad to give him another chance and possibly add another productive editor to the project. Best of luck Ryan, Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I believe that unblocking/banning him with the above restrictions is the correct course of action, for the reasons stated above. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I had positive observations of the Jack Merridew account, and was surprised when he got blocked. I support an unblock, and if Ryan is going to mentor him, that'll be excellent, as I have full confidence in Ryan's judgment. If Moreschi wants to co-mentor, that's a big bonus here. Acalamari 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support under the restrictions stated above (and as if you haven't got enough mentors, I'd be happy to help too). Black Kite 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Get in line, get in line :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support so long as he abides by the restrictions above. I've been in constant private contact with him via email. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. My gut instinct here is that he's highly likely to be a good editor now, and we should extend him good faith and another chance. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Practical Question: "Interacting" is pretty vague. If White Cat begins, say, reverting Jack's edits, is Jack allowed to speak up for them? Or is he required to shout "Run Away!" and let it go?Kww (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat. If he goes around interacting with Jack, I would view that as seriously as Jack interacting with White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not so optimistic as you all, and I feel I have considerable experience with Davenbelle. I was an arbitrator on his "Moby Dick" arbitration case, have dealt with several subsequent CheckUser investigations, and was the one to ban him, a year ago today. I don't think he has or will change, and I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory. To remind you, Davenbelle was involved in an arbitration case in 2005 in which it was found that he had stalked White Cat, and warned to stop.

  What happened? He didn't, and was blocked for harassment of White Cat less than a month later. He was, by the way, engaged in a second arbitration case at the same time as this one, and that one saw him banned from all politics articles, for protracted warring. After his first block, he "left," but almost immediately returned with the sockpuppet Moby Dick, and immediately evaded the arbitration findings by returning to stalking Megaman and White Cat. Of course, a few months later, now in June 2006, we had another arbitration case, "Moby Dick" was found to be Davenbelle, and given a parole to keep him from harassment of White Cat or Megaman. The result? Blocked for a week not long after for harassment. Then? He created an account on Commons, where White Cat is an admin, and soon got himself blocked for another week for harassment. Undeterred, he created another identity, Diyarbakir, to evade the arbitration ruling and harass White Cat again. That account was soon blocked, and as a result, we finally banned Davenbelle. This is when he created "Jack Merridew," and immediately began editing popular fiction articles just when that controversy, involving White Cat, was beginning. And that's not really a surprise: White Cat has two main editing interests—Turkish/Kurdish issues, and TV shows, especially Starfleet. Davenbelle, "Moby Dick," and "Diyarbakir" all mostly edited Turkish/Kurdish articles and stalked White Cat there, but even then, edits like [11] to one of White Cat's Starfleet articles were part of the stalking. Jack Merridew happened to be intensely interested in White Cat's other area of editing, and spent his entire time warring against White Cat's position, and we are to believe this was constructive editing on his part? Now, five arbitrations (that I know about), four identities (that we know about), and three years later, after all that time of concerted and bad-faith stalking, sockpuppeting, and evasion of restrictions across multiple wikis, when he gets caught, not by accident but because he was engaging in the same stalking of the same editor yet again, we are optimistic that he will reform This Time? I think the best thing we could do would be to try to do whatever we can through blocks to break his psychological addition to Wikipedia and conflict, not encourage him back. Dmcdevit·t 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Per Dmcdevit's amazingly accurate argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe this is WP:BEANS but "Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat." leaves an obvious way for JM to stalk without stalking. He just needs to get ahead of White Cat and do things that will annoy him. The different opinions (I don't know if JM really feels the way he seems to or it's just part of his stalking act) the two editors have on fiction give JM the perfect opportunity. All he has to do is engage in some TTN style activity (like he's done before) and it's guarenteed to annoy White Cat. White Cat will show up afterwords and apparently RP will enforce a restraining order against White Cat. If you're going to unblock, JM needs to be banned from editing anything that's remotely related to Kurds or fiction. I have a feeling he won't feel like editing if he can't work in those two areas, but who knows. Remember that JM has shown the abiltiy to confine himself to subjects not related to White Cat's interests for weeks or months just to avoid looking like a stalker when he starts doing what he really wants. I wouldn't be surprised if he went through a one year fiction/Kurd ban just to then go after Whte Cat. He's already spent three years on this, what's one more. If a one year ban doesn't force him to create another sock puppet, then maybe he's reformed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree only to a conditional fiction ban; he's been very helpful on Dungeons & Dragons articles, which he continued to edit until he was blocked. Given as I have never seen White Cat on articles related to D&D and more on articles related to anime and such, I'd support a topic ban on anime, but not a blanket ban on all fictional-subject articles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking with the extension of good faith. The latest account and edits appear to be wholly constructive and beneifical, and I am hoping that the unblocking would further lead to a continuation of that. seicer | talk | contribs 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking, what DMCDevit said as well as Peregrine Fisher's comment that was meant the other way, "He's already spent three years on this, what's one more." Everyone promises to be good once they are caught (oh, and they are all innocent too) and have punishment put upon them. Upon release, old habits die hard. I don't care for the unblock at all. He doesn't need the Jack Merridew account unblocked when if he truly wanted to edit and build the project, he could just start fresh and let bygones be bygones. But this brings up bygones, so I think we're being trolled. Keegan^talk 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• He can't start fresh, Keegan; that's the problem. His original account is banned and he has a few socks (JM being his most recent and best-behaved), and in all cases White Cat has homed in on him (see this diff). I have to agree with the supporters above when they say he's been a net positive to the project as JM, ban notwithstanding. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, Jéské, I understand the letter of the law of the banning policy. No contributions of any kind, revert on site, unwelcome. Now in the spirit of the law, if a user truly just wants to edit and move on, we would never know if they were previously banned unless their old patterns of behavior show up. I hope that clarifies my point there. Keegan^talk 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with that, I think, is that JM has certain very obvious spheres of interest where he contributes constructively (for instance, Dungeons and Dragons articles). A new editor turning up out of the blue, obviously knowledgeable about Wikipedia and editing those articles might as well be waving a big flag saying "I am Jack Merridew", checkusers and blocks will be requested by certain editors, and we'll have another big drama and time-sink that we didn't need to have. Black Kite 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• No. As has been noted above, this has been going on for years and has included many accounts. Some constructive editing does not grant a free pass for serial harrassment, and I don't see anything that would suggest he has reformed -- he was just less obvious this time. I also agree with Peregrine Fisher, that the proposed restrictions would be too easy to game. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock Jack/David handled himself very well with this recent account. I'll admit, I was a bit pissed off that he had lied to us, especially when some of us came to his defense about the sock accusations, but he could have kept the lie going, but instead he chose to come clean. I know the frustration David has experienced, and while I don't think he made the right choices, it does put those choices into a certain context for me. And yeah, a few years makes a huge difference, and giving someone another chance at this point is more than reasonable. He's being open and honest with us, and is willing to work with us. This is what we want to encourage. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• We're also going to be watching him like a freakin' hawk, so it's not like he'll be able to get away with anything regarding harassment/stalking of White Cat. There is little to no risk in this unblock. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another idea popped into my head: if need-be we can also give specific topical bans, if that would put White Cat or other opposers at ease. Such as specific shows, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock No-one but White Cat (who in hindsight was obviously right with his/her accusations against JM) saw a ban-worthy problem in JM. Sockpuppeting is very bad, harrassing other editors is bad, but if JM abides by these unblocking terms as his last chance, which I am sure he will, I just see his net positive increasing. The unblocking terms can also be strengthened if someone thinks they are to lax. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• I would be willing to support a Conditional Unblock if that were the consensus, but only with a 12 month topic ban on AfD participation and any popular culture which he is known not to like. Though not as disruptive as TTN, I feel further participation in this area would quickly lead to more conflict. However, I do feel he can contribute constructively to areas on Indonesia and he is excellent at formatting and wikifying. otherwise I'd have to oppose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I will add myself to the mentorship queue as well as we were getting some productive stuff happening before all this happened. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any kind of precedent for a multi-year stalker who has reformed their behaviour? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an opportunity to create one. Support unblock, no doubt he will be watched to ensure his behaviour has matured. If we are requiring Jack not to interact with White Cat, however, then we must also require the reverse from White Cate (otherwise there's the possibility of baiting etc). Neıl ☎ 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock with Ryan's proposed restrictions. I've had contact with Jack and I really get the sense that he wants to be here for the project. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support an unblock in the spirit of AGF. I would prefer if the user was monitored quite closely for a period deemed appropriate though, just in the interests of being sure of Merridew's true intent. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Naturally, I'm assuming that such "monitoring" (perhaps that was the wrong word, I didn't mean to sound patronising, I kind of just meant "keep an eye on") will be "conducted" by Ryan, as mentor? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think you can safely assume that if Jack is unblocked, a number of people will "have an eye on" his conduct. Black Kite 10:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Concerned per Dmcdevit—willing to AGF, but any interaction (AT ALL) with White Cat, and he's gone, IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Dmcdevit. Almost everyone can reform. But all Moby Dick's activity on Wikipedia for the last 3 years demostrate that he's unable to reform. Giving him another chance would be a waste of everybody's time, and this waste is taking place here already. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose He's already wasted enough good-will, we don't need to suffer any more of the WP:POINT-y disruption Merridew specialised in. Catchpole (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock in that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, contingent on some probationary conditions (such as avoiding White Cat and perhaps certain areas, at least for some length of time,) and that any further disruptive behavior will lead to a one-way trip out the door. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I believe this is at heart a constructive contributor. The exaggerated attention to WhiteCat he has shown has at least as much to do with real problematic behaviour on WhiteCat's side as with any intention of stalking on Merridew's side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocked as there clearly is no longer a consensus for the original block. I'll put him under the mentorship of me and Moreschi and place him under the editing restrictions I originally quoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too, to the other folks above. I certainly accept the terms of this and will do my best to not disappoint folks. I would like Jéské Couriano to be formally considered to be one of my mentors as we've already discussed it in some detail. To those who've expressed reservations, I would like to offer further assurances that I will not squander this opportunity. I am well aware that I'll be monitored. I do not mind. I'll offer links to my past contributions on my user page when I rework it next. To anyone interested, there's an accounting of my accounts here. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Only acceptable if he avoids AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Outraged Oppose So it's done, but that's I feel a definate need to comment. I won't go through the whole list, but the idea that Jack has been described as a positive in his last sock disgusts me. How much abuse was heaped on Pixel. How many called Pixel a paranoid delusional for the audacity of correctly identifying a sock of a banned user while Jack just sat back laughing and lying. And this process, begining while most of the US was asleep and ending before we wake up. People do in darkness what they fear to do in the light. Pardon me while I let my disgust for this process settle.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering that I was prepared to unblock hi regardless of this thread, an unbanning was always going to happen, so it doesn't really matter when it was started. There's also a very clear consensus anyway to unblock, even though it hasn't been open too long. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's disgusts me. Having a popular opinion outweighs abuseu on users and abuse of community standards.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, the only thing that matters here is whether admins were ready to unblock him and there was plenty because they are able to see the bigger picture in this instance. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes in the end that's all that matters. That those with the power decided that abusive sockpupetry and ban evasion only deserves a 1 month block. And in the end the it disgusts me doesn't matter. I've said all I can without violating WP:NPA but today's a black day for WP and many of you and it's a day I won't soon forget.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So the message is sock-puppetting and arbitration sanctions don't matter as long as you keep up with your social networking. Catchpole (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like that at all. I actually originally blocked him, but I've spent a long time looking over his contributions on all accounts and believe he has improved a lot since the days when he got sanctioned. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Just so it's clear what we're discussing. At least ALL of the following were confirmed to be Jack's accounts:

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomas Jerome Newton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senang Hati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - I have some reservations, due in part to the issues with WhiteCat (will they really end this time?) and due to some other civility issues we experienced with him on the D&D Wikiproject. I take the concerns raised by Dmcdevit very seriously. I also have to agree with Casliber's assertion that he avoid participation in pop culture articles and AFDs related to pop culture articles, and that I'd like to see him make more positive contributions to things that interest him such as Senang Hati Foundation - now that would really make him a worthwhile contributor this time around. I would oppose this unblock, but I'd really like to WP:AGF here that a tiger can change his stripes. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• He created Senang Hati Foundation Under User:Senang Hati ^[12]' and has a WP:COI with Indonesian Development of Education and Permaculture [13]--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The unblocked was performed rather prematurely, only 10 hours after this thread had been started. User had been blocked for a few months, why the hurry today? I also do not see such strong consensus in favor of unblocking here as to warrant so quick an action. In any case, as the block is now ended, the onus in on the mentors to ensure that user Jack Merridew will behave properly from now on. While we give a second chance for this editor to redeem himself, he should be fully aware that any further disruption will immediately lead to a reblock. As one of those who are rather unimpressed by his previous actions, I echo Casliber's words above and recommend more explicit restrictions concerning this user's participation is deleion debates. This I understand, however, is up to the mentors to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There wasn't much else to discuss once me and a few other admins said they were willing to unblock - the original block no longer had consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You needed a consensus to unblock, not a no-consensus to uphold the original block. If any block can be reversed just because a few admins want to unblock, Wikipedia will undoubtedly be in chaos. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• It should be noted, that the some of remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek do not refer to a finite period of time, and are therefore still in effect (or am I missing something here?). These include a topic ban on Turkey and Kurdish issues, prohibition from harassing Cat and enforcement by blocks. – Sadalmelik (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Quite true. This has been discussed with the AC and with the mentors. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I gave this thought over the night, and asked myself the important question: "Would I even consider unblocking Jack Merridew if I didn't dislike White Cat so intensely?" The answer is no. I agree that Jack has generally been a positive influence, but there are violations so severe that banning is the only appropriate punishment. He has been deceitful, evaded bans and blocks, and has apparently been a positive contributor primarily through a negative effect: since undoing all of White Cat's work has a generally positive effect on the project, Jack's work has been positive. However, if White Cat had been contributing positively, that very same effect would have turned Jack into a negative contributor. That's not the kind of editor we need.Kww (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  This has never been personal. In your hypothetical scenario, I would not have been undoing good edits. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Principle Oppose Previously neutral, with some degree of alarm that a non participating editor that has one 15 minute ban to their name is being commented as perhaps being required to self topic and revert ban themselves to allow a (from review of this thread only) sockmeister to return from a indef block. However, to have already unblocked this account on the staggeringly original concept that since a number of admins were willing to give this editor a chance to edit again that there is no consensus for the block is astonishing. Excuse me? While this indef block is now longer a ban, there being at least one admin who would be prepared to unblock, there still needs to be a consensus to lift the tariff - and I do not see it yet. I am unsettled that a proposed mentor and initiator of this discussion (who I have always held in the highest regard) would take such an individual interpretation of policy in regard to an blocked editor with whom they have an obvious interest. I trust that my misgivings are unfounded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (So, it is fine if I go off and unblock User:Poetlister - there now being no consensus for the ban, which I have misgivings over? Yeah, thought so...)

• You would be a bit late: Poetlister was unblocked earlier today after ArbCom review:[14] – Sadalmelik (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, they slipped that one in under the radar, didn't they? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Er... well, that took the wind right out my sails... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This user has been participating at Commons, with an approach of coming clean and admitting the previous socks. The contributions that are on target for the mission of Commons have been, in my view, generally acceptable, although there has been a fair bit of the contributions that are focused on metaissues like renames, appeals, and the like. So this is a user that does consume some admin resource, that's for sure. Another factor is that there has been a move vandal that has plagued this user by taking names and causing some trouble by impersonation, on many different wikis. (this vandal also impersonates a lot of other users as well to be troublesome... generally available SUL and global blocking are going to go a long way to help fight this kind of behaviour) I take no position on the block itself (which in any case was already lifted I guess) but did want to offer some of this information. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose; this user was a aggressive and uncivil edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. The only instance where I can see unblocking as reasonable would be if he strictly avoids all edit warring, aggressive redirecting of articles, and obeys the civility policy, with the penalty of a long-term block if he violates those conditions. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral/Weak Endorse - I'm with DHMO on this one. Rudget (Help?) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in UEFA Cup 2007-08

Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the discussion page a few users decided that it's not fair and want to count 10 Pogrebnyaks goals, and that way making 2 top scorers. The thing is, i dont think Wikipedians are allowed to decide what's fair and whats not. An UEFA desicion, an offical one, is what counts.

P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible new sockfarm in the process of being created

Resolved

 – Grawp... all blocked.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – looks like more sockpuppets were created which have not been blocked, not sure if checkuser is needed.

--Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone is going through and creating new accounts using single random nonstandard unicode characters such as these few: [15] and [16]. If you go thru the user creation log, there a dozens of these created in the last hour or so. Just something to keep an eye on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking him; some of his socks have had unusual Unicode in their names. Keep note of all the names created; if one of them shows symptoms of Potteritis, see Thatcher immediately for an IP check. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He's definately active RIGHT NOW. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger&action=edit&redlink=1. Anyhoo, in good faith, I greeted them all with a friendly "please change your username". Thus, I can keep an eye on them. As usual, Grawp is a quick block if he starts getting outta hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That username was flagged and blocked instantly. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just saying that it shows he is active right this second. Is there enough for a checkuser yet on these new unicode names? BTW, there have been 5-6 more since we've been chatting here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, if you point out our mistaken phone-caller and all the accounts were made in the same time period, then point out his checkuser case, where a lot of unusual-Unicode-containing usernames were fluched out.-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

By the by, East718 has called in the Devastators. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So far, they're all on TOR, and they're all Grawp. east.718 at 04:45, May 2, 2008

I had a feeling they were Grawps based on the Unicode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And they've all been blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk · contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison ^❤ 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:ԣ
• User:׳״ֽ
• User:؟
• User:٪
• User:ۨ
• User:ۨ٪
• User:܀
• User:܁
• User:܃
• User:܄
• User:ܑܐܑ
• User:ܞ܂ܗ
• User:ޮ
• User:இஇ
• User:ᐁ

is the full list AFAIK... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User:ℋ for Hermy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Funny since, _I_ blocked that one... hmf... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more (neither blocked right now):

• User:ޮ ޮ
• User talk:܀܀܀

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done - all the above checked. Blocked a bunch of TOR nodes as well as some more accounts - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New batch that showed up shortly after we blocked all of the above. Some of these may or may not be related:

• Obviously same:
  • User:ԯ
  • User:윤지용
• Not obviously same, likely related, or may be a different sockfarm:
  • User:Ἄτλας
  • User:Κρόνος
  • User:Άργος
  • User:Κύκλωψ
  • User:Κύκλωπες
  • User:Kyklops
• Maybe related, or maybe not:
  • User:குறோணி

The second sockfarm is all Greek myth characters(Atlas, Chronos, Cyclops), rendered in the original greek (except the last one, which is transliterated to Latin characters, but still the greek name). All created in a very short period of time. These may be need to be checked out as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 윤지용 could be legit, and checkuser doesn't work for me with User:குறோணி (maybe a font thing) but the Greeks are more tor sockfarms. Thatcher 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If checkuser passes the username in a URL parameter, try replacing it with exactly "%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8B%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%BF". And it may not have been the best idea to suggest that a given username cannot be examined with checkuser. --Random832 (contribs) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

for would-be vandals who like BEANS, I can say that the above name, குறோணி (talk · contribs) works fine with checkuser for me :), so  Confirmed again. Also, the other accounts under there were already blocked by Thatcher - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I would suggest that if any more pop up, lock down their talk pages immediately. Blueboy96 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More usernames from Greek mythology have been created:

• Polyphemos (talk · contribs)
• Πολύφημος (talk · contribs)
• Steropes (talk · contribs)
• Στερόπη (talk · contribs)

then some Celtic mythology names:

• Fachen (talk · contribs)
• Peg Leg Jack (talk · contribs)
• Fachin (talk · contribs)
• Direach Ghlinn Eitidh (talk · contribs)
• Dwarf of Glen Etive (talk · contribs)
• Fir Bholg (talk · contribs)
• Fomorian (talk · contribs)
• Fomóiri (talk · contribs)
• Fomóraig (talk · contribs)
• Balor of the Evil Eye (talk · contribs)
• Eochaid Bres (talk · contribs)
• Eochu Bres (talk · contribs)
• Buarainech (talk · contribs)
• Cethlenn (talk · contribs)
• Cethlion (talk · contribs)
• Ethniu (talk · contribs)
• Ethliu (talk · contribs)

more Greek names:

• Geyron (talk · contribs)
• Γίγαντες (talk · contribs)
• Gigantomachia (talk · contribs)
• Alcyoneus (talk · contribs)
• Alkyoneus (talk · contribs)
• Enkelados (talk · contribs)
• Ἐγκέλαδος (talk · contribs)
• Klytius (talk · contribs)
• Hekatonkheires (talk · contribs)
• Centimani (talk · contribs)
• Briareus the Vigorous (talk · contribs)
• Gyges the Big-Limbed (talk · contribs)
• Cottus the Striker (talk · contribs)
• Cottus the Furious (talk · contribs)

All these were created yesterday between 20:40 and 23:20; most are names of giants. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Another: Cottu (talk · contribs), an alternative name of Cottus the Striker / Cottus the Furious and registered around the same time. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Another sockfarm (or two)?

Resolved

 – Many already blocked in March by User:John Reaves; others whacked today

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three accounts were created around 22:40 yesterday, with usernames Sticks & Stones (talk · contribs), They may break my bones (talk · contribs), and Usernames won't hurt me (talk · contribs).

Another group of accounts, possibly related to the three above, are Made by Tony X. Liu (talk · contribs), James Huggett's Flat (talk · contribs), Oliver Tramp-Hallam (talk · contribs), and Guinness Book of Remis (talk · contribs), which are probably socks of Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs), and it looks like the user created a number of other accounts around the same time. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed 211 socks now listed at User:Thatcher/sockfarm. Who feels like robo-blocking? (Leave me a note when they're done, please. Thatcher 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert me if I'm off base, but I'm going to break that list into blocks of 20, and we can tag them when they're done to avoid duplicating efforts. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. It took me 15 minutes just to wikifomat the list from the checkuser output so I could post it. Thatcher 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. One section was already blocked in March by John Reaves, so I'll work through the others. Is there a puppetmaster I should tag each page with, or just the usual template? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother with tagging. They're disposable accounts created by someone with too much time on his hand, and caught before they were used. And it wasn't the Pope Lister guy, so I would just block. Thatcher 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess at the sockpuppeteer was based on the similarity to some "Pope" and "Judge" usernames (although similar names have probably been created by more than one person). Also I have noticed another group of accounts, with usernames of Star Wars characters (see List of Star Wars characters), created from 05:33 today: someone creating sockpuppets, or is there another explanation? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Names? Thatcher 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2-1B (Too-onebee) (talk · contribs)
• 8D8 (Atedeate) (talk · contribs)
• Aarrba the Hutt (talk · contribs)
• Aayla Secura (talk · contribs)
• Achk Med-Beq (talk · contribs)
• Adi Gallia (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Firmus Piett (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Daala (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Kendal Ozzel (talk · contribs)
• Aidan Bok (talk · contribs)
• Ainlee Teem (talk · contribs)
• A'kal Vincolan (talk · contribs)
• Ak-rev (talk · contribs)
• Aks Moe (talk · contribs)

Created between 05:33 and 06:02, I can't see any more after that. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tor sockfarm. Thatcher 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Knocked out sections 1 and 2, and finished out 3. Some of the usernames are slightly amusing. seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alternative science

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Import idea

I know Skynet will be brought up, but I know other wikipedia's have admin Tor (un)blocking bots. what are the thoughts of importing this bot to en wiki? β^{_{command 2}} 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In before moronic comments such as "the bot will go rogue and block everyone" and "admin bots will take over the encyclopedia". Nakon 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends, I'm not that active on other wikipedia's, how long does it take to review each case? Rudget (Help?) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean review a case? β^{_{command 2}} 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter, I read it wrong. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

more reading nl:Gebruiker:RonaldB/Open proxy fighting β^{_{command 2}} 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. It looks to be running smoothly and without problems at the Dutch Wikipedia, as you provided. As with any part of Wikipedia, there isn't much danger of running away with the problem; if the bot misbehaves it can be blocked or shut down quickly, and anything it does can be rechecked manually if it screws up. We already have at least one limited application admin-capabale bot; this one seems to be a non-controversial, repetitive, and otherwise timewasting tasks for humans to do manually, exactly what a bot is designed for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was just about to comment, but got distracted below. I'd agree this a good idea and after reading the link that was provided, I see no reason why the theoretical account can't be blocked, like explained above. Rudget (Help?) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The bot will go rogue and block everyone. Admin bots will take over the encyclopedia. Oh, wait...am I too late?  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• There needs to be a way to exempt users from blocking if they set up a TOR node on their IP with read-only access to Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Is that possible? I know you can chose not to exit to certain websites (and that's easily checkable), but how can you just prevent editing, and not browsing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I like the idea. If nobody has done it yet I am willing to over to the NL wiki and ask if the owner is willing to come over here and run it of course after it has been approved. Rgoodermote  20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonaldBot 2 β^_command 22:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • O. Well...the offer still stands. But I see it will not be used. I do however still like the idea. Rgoodermote  00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Presumably it'd be done the same way as WJB's redirect cleanup bot - an RfA and BRfA, wasn't it? There won't be any problems if it gets wide community consensus, obviously —Alex.Muller 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop giving me warnings

I've had about 5 warnings from this stupid "bot" about making edits on here

it happens if i'm logged in or viewing as a guest

i've not made any ******* edits for ages!! CHECK MY LOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm getting sick of it, WTF is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stradlin21 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What warnings? Your talk page doesn't exist. --Kbdank71 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it does now, but there are no warnings on it. --Kbdank71 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because someone using your IP is being warned and will only happen when you are logged out. If you stay logged in, you won't have this problem in the fututre. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but it says even when the user is logged in. --Kbdank71 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the timestamps on the bot notices? Rudget (Help?) 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:142.25.147.90

When I do a whois on 142.25.147.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), it says "British Columbia Systems Corporation", then gives an email address @bc.gov.ca. Does that mean that this IP is editing from government offices? Corvus cornix_talk 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the corporation that, near as I can tell, handles all of the IT for the provincial government - including a lot of the school systems. I e-mailed the admin there a while back about some heavy vandalism from one of their IPs, and he e-mailed back to confirm that it was in fact a school IP, copying it on to the specific techs for that address for action. It's not the Legislature or anything. The guy seemed cool about the issue when I contacted him, if anyone wants to point out the rafts of vandalism that come out of there... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. The IP is about to be blocked and I wanted to be sure that the block got reported to the appropriate people if this turned out to be a government office. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You could do worse than to drop the tech guy an e-mail if it's a persistent problem. The one I reported had a block log as long as my arm. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons backlog is getting big

The backlog at Category:All images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is getting quite large. Could some admins please take a look at this? Soxred93 (u t) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

Currently a community ban is de facto created, any time a user is indef-blocked, and no admin is prepared to unblock them.

Two problems:

1. Most community bans are in practice consensus driven anyway,
2. With 2000over 1500 admins there is always an admin who will unblock even a block most others agree with. Our consensus model clashes heavily with an "any admin acting unilaterally" model here. It can cause problems, since most other decisions, wide consensus trumps most things.

Question - is it time we moved to a consensus-based view of a community ban?

The proposal would be:

• A community ban arises where there is a consensus that a user should be banned from the wiki. A ban may either be created by discussion and consensus, or by an initial indef-block that a consensus then agrees should be considered a ban. Once created, a community ban may be removed by consensus, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The consensus in each case is of uninvolved admins.

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with point 1, but is there any evidence of point 2 being an issue? I haven't seen it, and of the 1537 admins, I doubt more than a third are currently active. --Rodhullandemu 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus model is seen as important. Also, actual cases probably do exist where an argument has broken out whether sole admin X can unban someone whom a consensus favors keeping blocked (placing consensus vs. unilateral models at loggerheads), or some such. Just seems that this would be a nice way to handle it that effectively codifies how we do it nowadays, where actual community bans mostly are consensus backed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Todays midnight unblock of Jack Merridew supports point 2.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I missed that; I've, er, been writing an article, bizarrely enough.--Rodhullandemu 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it would certainly seem inappropriate for community consensus to be overturned by a single admin, and in that sense, it does seem that the current system lacks logic. --Rodhullandemu 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree with the assesment that any indef block is a defacto ban... Remember the differences: accounts are blocked, persons are banned. Many, if not most, indef blocks are a result of an account being used to vandalize or cause any other type of disruption, after which the person can re-register and start over productively. You're not proposing we need to get consensus first for these blocks, I hope? — Edokter • Talk • 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the user who wrote WP:INDEF so yes, I do remember it :-) More seriously, you might have split the sentence when it wasn't intended you should. Note the wording after the comma, "and no admin is prepared to unblock them". Or else you're discussing clean starts, which are a bit different. We surely don't expect anyone indef-blocked to be able to just start a new account and carry on unchanged. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2, that sounds like a reasonable concept. Here is a pair of options for implementing it:

1. Require 2 admins to unblock a community-banned user; they must commit to keeping tabs on the user until the community comes to a consensus that this is no longer necessary (or X months, whichever comes first).
2. Any user subject to community ban who is unblocked will automatically be reblocked after X edits. At that time, a different admin must review the user's edits and decide to finally unblock. Both admins will thereafter be charged with keeping tabs on the community-banned user until there is community consensus otherwise (or X months pass, whichever comes first).

FT2's vision is cleaner than either of these mechanisms for implementing it, but what I'm trying to do here is offer concrete suggestions that would at least make the community ban more difficult to overturn than it is now. Antelan^talk 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifics of X admins may not be needed. Good consensus is more to the point (see FCYTravis' point below). An addition that "banned users are usually parolled back into the community" will suffice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I like this approach. If it fails, we can consider other options (such as the X admins watching for X months approach that I've suggested here). I, for one, hope it doesn't come to that. Antelan^talk 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be studied very closely to avoid becoming "Votes for Banning." FCYTravis (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Same applies to any consensus discussion though. CSN was merged back into ANI exactly to ensure many more eyeballs to prevent that. Yes it's important, but the issue here is more "in principle". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I support this. A consensus-based approach makes it much more likely that people are going to seriously review these matters in substantial numbers, reducing the probability of inappropriate bans. Furthermore, individual admins should not have veto power; we need to encourage more collaborative decision-making among admins. Everyking (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reservations in supporting this, though I am not closed to the concept -- indeed, it is to a certain extent current practice. Votes for banning must absolutely be avoided, and the barrier must be pretty high. The aim of the debate should be "are there any reasonable objections to putting this ban into place?" rather than "does anyone oppose this ban?". This is, of course, difficult to achieve. It might require a decision that whoever says "Support ban ~~~~" has such a comment removed from the discussion. I have great scepticism about Antelan's ideas in particular -- that kind of concrete system is incredibly arbitrary and inflexible -- two principles that must be as far as possible from any consideration of banning. In response to Everyking, admins should not have veto power, but a well-reasoned objection should. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

With your permission, if this went ahead, I'd put the "aim of the debate" point as a footnote to the final version, if folks agree. Good call. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have advocated something like this proposal for a long time. We need to reduce drama. If 80% of admins want to ban somebody, they should be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that rather depends what the other 20% think. If they, in general, think "I don't think they need to be banned yet, but it's well on the road", then I think a ban would be reasonable. If they in general think "No, absolutely not, this user has done nothing warranting banning and here's why ...", I think a ban is misplaced. If consensus banning is to be introduced, it has to be real consensus, not an arbitrarily defined figure. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But then Admins are supposed to be able to assess consensus on AfDs, and Bureaucrats on RfAs. Since this would be an Admin-input process, would Bureaucrats therefore be the best to assess consensus, or should it be left to Admins? --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support in principle, with an important caveat: people who are partisans to a particular conflict should be expected to recuse themselves from the actual consensus and/or disclose their history of involvement. It wouldn't be right for a team of people to gang together and force the outcome of something as important as a ban. Durova^Charge! 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely agreed regarding disclosure of involvement. Once concern, though, is that this phrasing makes it sound like this is going to be a vote. Certainly involved admins shouldn't participate in an administrative way in these matters, but involved parties should be welcome to give their input, so long as they disclose their involvement. Antelan^talk 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• The amended version looks great - a long overdue update. Thank you very much, FT2, for proposing this. Should reduce the occurrence of periodic drama-fests. Durova^Charge! 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, in principle - but I would like it made clear that the later lack of consensus for a ban resulting from an indef block which was originally supported is not consensus to unblock. The erosion of consensus in banning an editor still means that the block is in place, but that an admin is prepared to argue for the lifting of the block; there is still the need to establish consensus that the block can be lifted. This comment comes directly from the actions performed regarding Jack Merridew a few sections above (at the time of writing). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to escalate an indef block is not the same as consensus to remove it. I think that's your point. If so, concur. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but also consensus to de-escalating a ban does not mean there is consensus to unblock, only that there is the potential to unblock (first we agree we can discuss unblocking a banned editor, and only then do we talk about lifting the block.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. Based on what happened today the current process is fatally flawed.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• This sits fine with me. At present, the whole "if one admin feels an unblock is good, then it's all fine" concept really doesn't work in situations where the greater community may have something to say about it. In the above situation, I would be surprised if the majority of the community even knows it happened. We're a consensus-driven project, and that should be extended to community bans. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support this as well. Wizardman 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• You have my support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion assumes that community bans are normally enforced by a block that can be undone by the action of a single admin. In many cases community bans are topic bans and are, therefore, not enforced by a block but by reverting the edits of the banned user. Any policy revision should keep this in mind.

That being said, I agree with the concept that one admin should not be able to overrule consensus by undoing a community ban. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support in the hope that a previously supported block will henceforth not be reversed due to an agreement among a few individuals (like it was yesterday) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• I must oppose this. Banning is a very serious issue, and to be quite frank, the Wikipedia community acts like a mob sometimes. The current rules for a community ban, which allow that if any admin is willing to unblock, the user is not banned, are needed as a safeguard. This is simply holding bans to an extremely high standard of consensus. Already, we see editors being AFD'd from time to time by those who treat community bans as votes for banning. This change will simply empower that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is based on a misconception, in my opinion. If someone is indefinitely blocked, and an admin unblocks, then there arises the possibility that the admin will re-block, possibly/hopefully following discussion. If then the unblocking admin leaves the block then it's a ban, since they have reached the conclusion that their action has no support. If it continues to be lifted by that admin or others, then there is no ban for now — if a lone warrior persists in the face of vast opposition, then they will be stopped eventually by ordinary means, perhaps including an emergency arbitration. In the end, perhaps that collection of unblocking admins will as a whole come to the ban view, and leave it in place, in which case it's a ban by consensus. If they do not, then it cannot be viewed as tenable that the individual is likely to remain blocked, and thus no ban can possibly be in place.

None of these facts change if you happen to legislate some other "consensus" model, as is being mooted here – it matters not if there is a so-called consensus of a handful of passing admins to ban since if someone feels strongly enough that the person should be unblocked they will still do so. You cannot possibly stop unblocks by attempting to legislate in this way; a nice demonstration of why policy is descriptive and not legislative. This new piece of legislation tries to stop something that simply cannot be stopped while any admin retains technical abilities to unblock since feelings will eventually run high just as they do now. Finally, I dispute FT2's #2 as demonstrably untrue in the numerously many cases where indefinite blocks have stuck in the past. If we accept FT2's #2, however, then the proposal is doomed to failure as a matter of definition for the reasons I have just described. Also, of course, this will in practise function identically to the disastrous Community Sanction Noticeboard, and it is hopeless to suppose otherwise. Splash - tk 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Something to remember

We get caught up in our discussion of the way in which Wikipedia operates that sometimes we forget that it operates at all. We are consumer driven, millions more readers than the thousands of editors (hell, I'm not even an "editor" as much as I am a reader). I've been reading Ed Fitzgerald's userpage, which got me thinking about this thread.

The point is that we should all remember that Community Bans don't happen that often in the grand scheme of having the office open 24/7/366this year for business. At best a dozen a year.

These sort of community ban reviews are even more rare. I can only think of a couple times this has happened in recent years.

Sometimes smoke is caused by char and ashes. There is not always fire.

I'm just sayin. Keegan^talk 04:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly

New episodes are available. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Episode 10: guests Seth Finkelstein of The Guardian, Matt Sanchez (Bluemarine) of Worldnetdaily, and David Shankbone of Wikinews.
• Episode 11: guest Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press.
• Episode 12: (just the usual suspects from NTWW).
• Episode 13: guest Gerard Meijssen (GerardM), Open Progress Foundation Chairman.

CU Report Needs Some Admin Attention Now

We need some eyeballs to examine the validity regarding this report.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist?

Resolved

I am trying to start up a page titled "Walk That Walk, Talk That Talk" but it seems to be blacklisted due to abuse. The page is merely an album by the band "The Fabulous Thunderbirds" and is in no way to be used for malicious purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancera (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm apparently you managed to create it afterwards. Probably a technical issue on our side. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned Glass

I would like to start an article on the noted character actor Ned Glass, but the title seems to be salted. Can it be released, or should I use "Ned Glass (actor)" or some other variation? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We accidentally blocked regular spaces (again). The problem should be fixed now. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to BLP article Boris Johnson

An edit war on a WP:BLP article. The same quote, taken grossly out of context,[17] is being repeatedly inserted by two editors. As I, and another editor, have pointed out on the talk page the quote in question appears to be an attempt to summarise someone else's views and is not the opinion of the article's subject. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Asifchaudry is a sockpuppet account of User:Pakhistory1 based on their editing history on this article. I agree with Lo2u that these accounts are attempting to portray Johnson's views inaccurately by selective quoting. Because I am involved, I'm not going to take any admin actions on this article, but it would be useful if a couple of uninvolved admins could add the article to their watchlists and be prepared to step in if the edit war doesn't stop. Thanks, Gwernol 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Permanent move protection for articles on countries

Some of you might have noticed this persistent vandal who's been moving articles on countries to "HAGGER" every single day. Since articles on countries are unlikely to be reasonably moved to a new location (and definitely not without a proper listing at WP:RM, lengthy discussion and adequate closure of the move proposal by an admin), perhaps they should be granted permanent move protection. That way we would avert any move disruption including this HAGGER pest. Please provide feedback. Húsönd 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support that, even in the face of WP:DENY. Rudget (Help?) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me in. Both Irpen and I mentioned the general idea in the thread above (see Grawp). - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. We ought to move-protect high visibility articles (which have no reason to be moved). Hut 8.5 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

Why does this list exist? I though it was quality over quantity, but this list seems to be comparing users by the quantity of their edits. iMatthew 2008 11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmless data, in my view. I don't think the list is there to provide useless comparisons, but a simple display of users' productivity. Húsönd 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a list, and can provide insightful help for those looking for help immediately. Rudget (Help?) 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It may display the breadth of a users productivity, but like all statistics... It gives no recognition, for example, of an entire evenings input on one or two articles, with very few "saved" against preview edits, whereas as some gadfly who gives a lot of opinions on admin noticeboards, does a bit of AIV work, and a little wikification of a few articles, gets quite a few "ticks on the scoresheet". I like to think that both types of contribution are helpful, and such a list is far too simplistic to provide a proper evaluation of "worth". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So the list is to notify a reader of active editors? Because I believe plans are being made for this list to go into mainspace soon. iMatthew 2008 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the list has any actual purpose. It's just trivia: Useless, but interesting. --Conti|✉ 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it takes up a lot of the database doesn't is? iMatthew 2008 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's anything that we need to bother about. This data already exists, I can't imagine compiling it like that takes any more space than another long page- absolutely minimal. The list is used, and a lot of people have an interest in/make use of metadata. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, deleting it won't remove it from the database. A short edit war on George W. Bush would probably take up as much disk space. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN Image

• By my reckoning the same image of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN for about 11 days. Surely we can update the image a little more frequently than that. Yorkshiresky (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no big stories that need covering, apart from the Zimbabwe elections, but the potential image for this is, I think, being discussed at ITN candidates. Rudget (Help?) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Community noticeboard

Regulars of this noticeboard may be interested in a new noticeboard I set up. More info here, comments would be appreciated. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional input requested

A few more uninvolved voices would be appreciated regarding a topic ban review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requested_review. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for this board and ANI

Several times today, I've seen this page, along with ANI hit with Page Moves to nonsense names along with a lot of vandalism. I personally think this page, and WP:ANI should both be Semi-Protected Indefinitely to stop any possible attacks from IP users, or from immediately registered users. If IP's to have legimate complaints about other users, they can go to here to make a post. As I said above, I think this page, and ANI should both be semi-protected indefinitely. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. These pages are supposed to help come up with ways to rid of vandalism, not be another page for vandals to attack, you know? iMatthew 2008 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think move protecting would be a good idea here. Nobody but an admin should have a reason to move this page anyways. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)