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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

I have blocked the three open proxy ranges of AOL, 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 with anon-only, account creation enabled, for being effectively open proxies. These address can be exploited by anyone by installing and using the now-free AOL software [1] . More information on how AOL distributes IP address through the proxy server is located at Wikipedia:AOL. Anonymous editors on these ranges are encouraged to create an account. Naconkantari 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • How then are these open proxies any different than other open proxies? JoshuaZ 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A question to challenge the mind! It's easy for me to say "they are" but I'll get back with a more substantial answer soon. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Frankly, the only difference is that more people use them. From a technical standpoint they're the same. Beyond vandalism, we block open proxies because we can't trace edits from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I know they're the same from the technical point of view but I just don't like the idea of locking anyone who uses AOL out. Ultimately what I think doesn't matter. A fact I'm used to. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • But we're not doing that. We're blocking anyone who uses their proxy. Installing Firefox alone gets around that. Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I wonder, do we have any estimate how many productive anon edits we get from AOL? JoshuaZ 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• [2] and [3] sums it up pretty clearly. Naconkantari 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indefinite blocks?@#!@?#@???? I regularly edit (logged out) using AOL - and prefer the anonymity for sevearl reasons. In the last couple weeks; however, I have found fewer and fewer pages available to edit as the blocks are now being placed indefinately. This is bad for Wikipedia.

1. AOL attracts mainstream (i.e. non-computer geek) internet users. Forcing them to create a username to edit is just one more roadblock and goes against what I feel is a fundamental value of Wikipedia - allowing anyone to edit (who does so in good faith)
2. What may seem like a simple task of creating a username is not one. I (being a known computer-geek) am often asked by those over 50 (which I see regularly in my vocation) if people on the internet can track you - if I tell them my name can they com find me - if I give an email address what can they do to me. And although I reassure them it isn't that scary and give them guidelines. Forcing these users to register means we will lose many of them - and the valuable contributions their age and experience can bring to the project
3. Occasional editors (like me) who value the anonymity that AOL brings (through the use of an open proxy) - where 1) every edit I make has to stand on its own - my edits are subject to increased scrutiny because of the IP address, 2) I can edit where I want without being harrassed on my talk page (note I know that this can be a bad thing because of vandals) - and can make edits without the baggage of a "reputation" or a POV - I can ask hard questions to positions I may even support without risking my reputation, etc. These editors make substantial contributions to Wikipedia.

If we want to allow open proxies for anonymity or whatever then we should allow all open proxies. I don't see any reason to single out AOL open proxies. Such a move is patently unfair... Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many technically less skilled people who do not understand what "proxy" is or where to change the settings, yet they can still write good texts .... their contribution will probably lack wikilinks, categories and such stuff, but still may be valuable if they are experts on some topic (Much smaller expertise on article topic is needed for tasks like adding links or categories, so potentially many users can fix such article).

Also, due to new measure against impersonation, it is sometimes hard to register - when registering this my name, I got many messages like "Ook! Ook! is too similar to existing user Hhkkhhkk" till I gave up, picked up some nonsense name and headed to request a name change. There are many users here and this similarity detection quite limits what you can pick up .... many user may be discouraged by this for editing.

--Ook! Ook! 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reverse these indefinite blocks. Normally about 1/10 pages I try to edit, I am blocked from editing - I just go on to the next thing - no problem. But lately about 9/10 I am now blocked from editing. This is bad policy and reverses the long standing tradition of allowing editing from AOL. Thank you for listening. Abeo Paliurus 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this change shouldn't affect you at all. If anything it might make things better. Also, if this does cause problems for you, your only real option is to ask AOL to either use a different proxy for their subscribers, allow you to not use a proxy, or go back to the pre-open proxy days. If my ISP in NZ or a friends one in MY forced me to use a proxy which also happened to be an open proxy, I am pretty sure that I would have had no luck in convincing people to unban the open proxy so I don't get why we should make an exception for AOL. BTW, I guess you've read Wikipedia:AOL and tried it's solutions right? (since you have an an account I really don't get why you have any problems, just login from secure or use a different browser which doesn't use proxies) Nil Einne 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Open proxies should be blocked no matter how many people use them. Provide a decent explanation and rewrite Wikipedia:AOL in a form that assumes good faith and tries to be helpful to AOLers instead of starting with "Abusive users from America Online (AOL) can be difficult to deal with". Kusma (討論) 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• May I remind the mob that these are not open proxies, but rather the original poster has said they are effectively open proxies. Any proxy on the internet is "effectively" an open proxy if people are able to use it, as they are in this case. Why the distinction between "i have to enter said proxy into my browser's configs", or "i have to be added to an ackle" and this situation? In any of the above cases, it's a trivial effort to make use of the proxy. By that logic, I could say that any keyboard can be utilized to vandalize the wikipedia, all you have to do is go to BBUY and attach it to your machine. Yes, I am aware of reductio ad absurdium, but indulge me. ... aa:talk 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you realize that this change was precipitated by AOL making their client software free so that anyone can now use (or abuse) their proxy network at no cost? That makes their network an open proxy, i.e. an internet proxy that effectively anyone can use for free. AOL's proxy network was always problematic for us, but it didn't get blocked until they decided to make it open. So now it is blocked like many other open proxies and proxy networks on the internet in accordance with our long standing policies. Dragons flight 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you understand there is an important semantic difference between "an open proxy" and "effectively an open proxy"? There's a critical step here. One that requires forethought and malice, which we do not assume of anyone. Even AOL. This is completely inane. It's a damn lynching. ... aa:talk 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I have no idea what distinction you see between what AOL has now done and any other open proxy. Dragons flight 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But most normal open proxies have legitimate users (why would you create a proxy if you weren't intending to serve users) who may be forced to use said proxies by the ISPs. The issue here is no assuming anything. People who edit using normal open proxies, even if they are not legitimate users of said proxy may not be doing it because they want to vandalise. They may be doing it because they want anonymity, because they are banned from wikipedia at their school/work/whatever etc. Nil Einne 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine then, it IS an open proxy. If I am able to edit from it without having to pay for the service and it masks my real IP address, it's an "open" "proxy" which is to be blocked. Naconkantari 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse these blocks per the commenters above and m:Meta:No open proxies. AOL users can use our secure login ala Wiktionary or standard browser as already mentioned. Yamaguchi先生 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse we have a clear policy on open proxies and I have yet to see any good reason to ignore it. And might I respectably suggest that some users appear to have failed to understand the issue. AOL only recently changed their service to make their proxies effectively open proxies. Whatever has happened in the past is therefore irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a policy intended to prevent problems before they occur and we are simply abiding by the policy. Nil Einne 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• If we're doing this, we should do what Wiktionary does and put advice to AOL'ers at the top of the Main Page. I'm not too sure about the move in general, but I can't think of anything better for the time being, so it's probably best just to get the documentation sorted. --ais523 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probablly wise to speak to the devs before putting something like that on the en main page (or even the blocked page), I belive secure.wikimedia.org is served by only a single server. Plugwash 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much point they will find any instructions when they try to edit. Otherwise no need to advertise AOL on the main page.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse and more fully impliment. Indeed we do have a clear policy on open proxies and we need to follow it here. Account creation needs to be blocked from AOL's open proxies too. Then we can work on technical solutions such as making sure the XFF headers work or that people can use the secure login to identify the actual IP address. - Taxman ^Talk 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx neutralised account creation on the 21st. I think that settles the matter unless someone can come up with a better solution.Geni 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I use AOL. This means I...have to go...to Mozilla Firefox? Just to edit WP? No! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll wish you never looked back... MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse per above. MER-C 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah! per sanity. This should have been done as soon as the blocking software was upgraded. Proto::type 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this conflict with autoblocks from a registered user using AOL? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it overrides it, IIRC autoblocks are bottom of the pile, so these have the effect of stopping autoblocks impacting signed in users in those ranges, given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses autoblocks served little purpose on AOL so this is what we would want. --pgk 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern was that a signed-in user would be blocked (for vandalism or something). Then that user tries to edit and is autoblocked on an AOL iP. Does that shorten the "indefinite" block of the AOL IPs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The effect of this is to make autoblocks irrelevant, a user gets blocked and that block lasts as long as the admin puts in, if an autoblock occurs these blocks being higher up just keep the IP blocked but don't blocked signed in user. (The block of the user is higher up the tree again so the account which was blocked remains blocked for the correct duration). --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what my feelings are on this. Is this proposal to ban ALL AOL users from using Wikipedia unless they register an account? (And I should note from personal experience that registering an account does NOT make one immune from IP blocks, having been knocked offline a dozen times over the last few years). While I can understand the rationale, I think if you're going to block one particular ISP's ranges, then we might as well once again restart the debate over banning non-registered users from editing Wikipedia, period, an idea I personally support. 23skidoo 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Other ISPs don't provide access for free. AOL does through their new broadband software. Naconkantari 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is not about blocking one particular ISPs ranges, as noted above AOL users who use FireFox etc. get allocated a semistatic IP outside of the ranges of these proxies and can edit without issue. The problem with these proxies is that AOL has essentialy opened them up and made them available to anyone regardless of the ISP they pay and without passing the originating IP details through, i.e. they have become anonymous open proxies open to everyone. --pgk 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked 172.201.21.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm, that isn't within the proxy ranges. It's an AOL address but one of those which is semi-static for a single user, it can be blocked for longer than 15 minutes. --pgk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This user has already been blocked for something, should I unblock for shorter? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Reblocked for 48 hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• I fully endorse the blocking of the AOL ranges, and I'm actually with 23skidoo on this one. It only takes about a minute to create an account, all you need is a username, password, and you're done! No email needed, no confirmation (except for the little picture). If AOL has decided to open this up to all people in the world, as in anyone can use the proxy, that constitutes an open proxy. I applaud the admins who had the guts to implement the blocks, and the account creation blocks. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I continue to be disappointed that a change such as this would a) be implemented without discussion, b) refuses to acknowledge there are non-geeks trying to use wikipedia, c) disrespects our heratage that anyone can edit, d) does not assume good faith, e) shows no coordination with the wikimedia foundation in the use of XFF headers.

WHAT IS GOING ON!!! Spending just a few minutes researching this and guess what - this has been an issue for sometime and a technical solution is in the works with AOL. Are you admins here that cluless about how to sign-up for mailing lists, and yet expect AOL users (usually less computer savy than most) to figure out 1) that they need to use another browser (what is that they will ask, etc.) and 2) be able to find it and then 3) be able to navigate to the same page they were on before.

Foundation working with AOL in July, and days after you start blocking all these IP's (contrary to long established practice and without discussion re its impact), XFF headers are implemented. Abeo Paliurus 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spend a few minutes researching this (or just read the start of this thread), and guess what the situation has changed since July in that AOL have opened up their network to anyone not just direct subscribers. This is what has prompted the change. We don't expect people to figure out the stuff about changing browsers etc. We have a page dedicate to it prominantly listed in the block message, do we expect contributors to be able to read? Yes. As for (3) that isn't about being "tech savvy" that's about being able to navigate wikipedia, if they can't do that either we've got bigger problems to worry about (the site being unnavigable to the non tech-savvy) or there is a good change they aren't going to be able to edit coherrently. As for the XFF header stuff, yes we all know about that and it isn't supported by wikipedia yet, but when that is fixed the IP they appear to come from won't be the proxies, so blocking the proxies will have no effect. Blocking the proxies for anon accounts is the right thing to do, it resolves a short term problem and is rendered moot when the XFF changes gets implemented in mediawiki. --pgk 10:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, real vandals will just find something else, and the lack of openness is going to deter many legitimate users. Abeo Paliurus 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Original complaint

I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user. The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

• Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles [4].
• Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph [5]. In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Wikipedia[6].
• Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with [7]. (Also See:User:Durin/Husnock images).
• Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game [8]. I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking.
• Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page [9]. I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
• Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Wikipedia for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame [10]. He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" [11]. I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• • My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on User:Husnock/Travel. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -Husnock 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Wikipedia? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Wikipedia, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to m:OTRS when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --Durin 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' here. But I tend to agree that this edit of his wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Two gold pips Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's.
• As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --Durin 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated four times now, I am at present in the Middle East and could lose access to Wikipedia tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -Husnock 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. yandman 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --Durin 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Husnock on deployment: That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Wikipedia. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is.
• Re: RfC I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Wikipedia from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --Durin 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the WP:RFC with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this dispute

I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an RfC would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process.

As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so Durin stops direct activity on any and all Husnock's images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (Geni comes straight to my mind for example) to look over Husnock's existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per WP:CSD then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.)

I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts?  Glen  18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Wikipedia which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Wikipedia and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Wikipedia...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -Husnock 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via Special:Contributions/Husnock.
• 2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced.
• 3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) Wikipedia:Harassment where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such.
• 4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Wikipedia must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment.
• 5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources.
• 6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled.
• I recommend you accept the proposal by User:Glen S and the proposed mediation by User:Zscout370. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment is the next step. --Durin 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, also Zscout370 comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :)  Glen  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at User:Durin/Husnock_images but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to m:OTRS with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --Durin 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved Glen 00:10, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see User:Husnock/Durinharrass#Privacy_concerns. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --Durin 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I was the third party mentioned by User:Husnock in the Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game)#Fair use images discussions that had developed about those images and additionally I have already offered to review any images. If User:Husnock User:Durin and User:Geni agree I'll act as an independant 3rd party to resolve these image issues. By this Durin and Geni list the images with the issues, I'll assess whats required to comply with the license and talk directly with Husnock. In the event of Husnock becoming unavailable the issues are still being addressed, where because of Husnocks unavailability the only option is to delete I'll organise it to be deleted and fix any affected articles including User pages. Gnangarra 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to target me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Wikipedia when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who assured me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I DID give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a word about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -Husnock 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - Taxman ^Talk 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion Nil Einne 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Begging for help

On 22 November 2006, User:Taxman and User:Mindspillage left notes on User:Husnock's talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" [12][13]. Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger ([14], third paragraph and [15] second to last paragraph).

This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis.

Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace.

I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC.

I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --Durin 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for months been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a very small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Wikipedia, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour off Wikipedia, he has not, as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you might have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you",[16] so what are you worrying about?

Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could easily have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is.[17] An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and then complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has not deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned.

Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is not harassment or stalking.

A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Wikipedia? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source?

I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. AnnH ♫ 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase someone had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Wikipedia" and "wanted to find me". I NEVER said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page User:Husnock/Durinconcerns removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it:

"You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Wikipedia and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Wikipedia that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Wikipedia."

Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -Husnock 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That being the case, then you should find no problem removing a number of entries you have made since they have nothing to do with me yet you've tied them to me. In particular you should remove:

• Elements of item #9 from User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions, beginning with "quite possibly".
• Everthing in paragraph 3 of [18] beginning from "Rather the opposite".
• The last two sentences of paragraph #5 of [19].

Since these things have nothing to do with me, per your assertions above, then continuing to allow their presence here does not make any sense, would you not agree? --Durin 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock's accusations against me continue apace [20] [21]. --Durin 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wr deleted, what now?

Since this template/warning has been deleted, what should we now do when editors continually alter warning messages? This came up just minutes ago when I saw this edit which changes a blatant vandal warning message into a praising thank you note. What now? I sent a {{notyours}} message, but that's really not the template's purpose. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave a hand-written message. -- Eugène van der Pijll 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ;). Apologies for not being clear; what I meant to ask was if this is still a block-able offense. Does this situation warrant a report to WP:AIV for example? -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings is not by itself a blockable offence. Changing other people's warnings into praise is vandalism, and blockable, though. Kusma (討論) 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue all along is how to keep a record of a person's bad, but not-yet-blockabl behavior, without myself watching a dozen user's talk pages every day. I think the only solution for now is to leave 1 second blocks with explanations in the Block log, if a person insists on removing warnings. —Centrx→talk • 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting the title of the template in caps in the edit summary makes it easy enough to review past messages. yandman 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the idea of giving one-second blocks. If people have not done something to warrant a block, they have a right not to have their block log tainted.[22] The Wr template was often used to harass; indeed I saw more use of it for that purpose than for any legitimate purpose. If the editor who is being warned is editing from an IP, we have no way of knowing if the person behind the computer today is the same person as the one who replaced the entire George W. Bush article with the word "poop" last Thursday. There are some IPs that show good edits followed by a day of vandalism, followed by more good edits, etc. That's why, before reporting at WP:AIV, users should ensure that the IP has been warned for this bout of vandalism, unless it's clearly the same person. (Sometimes you can tell becuase they target the same articles with the same kind of vandalism.) As Yandman points out, a good way of making it easy to review past messages is to put "Test2 warning", "Bv warning", "Test4 warning" in the edit summary. But it does seem unnecessary to insist that a particular IP keep a previous vandalism warning from last month on display.

With regard to logged-on users, if it's a vandalism-only account, it will usually be blocked indefinitely, pretty quickly. It can be reported at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. That's less timeconsuming for the reporter than edit warring on the vandal's talk page. Such accounts generally don't last long. It's unusual for a regular editor to vandalize. Sometimes they vandalize user pages of users they're in dispute with. Again, there's no need to force them to keep warnings on their pages. Administrators should never block based solely on the existence of vandalism warnings, since some trolls send vandalism warnings to good-faith editors and admins who remove spam links.

Of course, altering a warning rather than simply removing it is another matter. But do we really need a template for it? How long does it take to type one line telling someone s/he's not allowed to alter warnings? And is it really worth blocking for? Blocks are to prevent harm to the encyclopaedia? Does it really do terrible harm to the encyclopaedia to have "Please do not vandalize" changed to "Please do vandalize" on someone's talk page, which will never be read by people coming to Wikipedia to look something up? If a blocked user is doing this, just revert, and if necessary, protect the page. If the user doing this has not been blocked, then isn't it better to have him messing around with his talk page than messing around with Pope Benedict XVI?

Whoever deleted that template deserves a barnstar. AnnH ♫ 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, blocking for one second seems like a very silly idea. On the other hand, I've always listed the template name in the edit summary when giving a warning template, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Warnings can be changed but the edit summaries are immutable. And naturally, I agree with Ann's points about the basis for blocking. Give us admins some credit, we're clever enough to work out who needs blocking and who doesn't. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A statement on the state of your Wiki

(I am saying this because I honestly feel that Wikipedia needs to wake up and improve, this is not meant to be a blanket finger-pointing but rather pointing out problems that need to be fixed.) Hello, for those of you who don't know me I was an administrator here until recently. I have long observed and cringed at the way many good faith contributors were treated by some admins, driving them to burst out in anger, which in turn leads to their indefinite blocks. There is no environment here to cope with people's mistakes, the only thing people do is chase away some of the better contributors, even if they are brand new. And I am thinking more of the actual article contributors rather than skilless janitorial work (that I sadly admit make up most of my contributions). I have seen good faith contributors be blocked indefinitely just because they did not quite understand how things are done and lost their temper in response to pushy admins, while regular contributors are often allowed to go around treating people harshly and calling good faith editors trolls with no consequences. I have seen admins swear at new users in big capital letters during content disputes, tell me, who would want to stick around after being yelled at?

I have seen many people argue against Citizendium - saying that it will not succeed or is structured wrongly. You might be right on that, though I have already long started contributing there instead of here because I can do so in a calm atmosphere. I tell you right now that even without any major drive for contributions it has attracted several hundreds of contributors, over 100 of them holding PhDs, and several hundred articles have been improved from the state they were at Wikipedia (a lot of these changes are quite major too, in some cases re-written from scratch). So look at this, and think how has this Citizendium pilot, which is only in its early days and not even open to public, has managed to get to this stage and is much more active than Wikipedia was when it first started? Why do these people (many of whom are busy Professors and the like) even feel the need to give their real names, give the real life credentials and link to a CV when they could have just come here and contribute with a click of an "edit" button on the much more well known Wikipedia? Admit it, Wikipedia has huge problems, and they need fixing.

Now no doubt some people responding to this will jump at me and refer to the ridiculous Arbitration case against me, where one of the active arbitrators is the blocking admin, and another kindly proposes to ban me for a year. (I have no intention of obeying any such bans, although if I will want to contribute something to Wikipedia I will come back and I will improve Wikipedia even if it is against the desire of the ArbCom). This is not what I am referring to, I am referring to the general state of Wikipedia, and the spirit of the ArbCom is only barely related to that. The Community of regular contributors is at fault, even more specifically I think it is the contributors who do a lot of maintenence work rather than article writing.

As for me, I have long given up my +sysop and do not intend to return to Wikipedia any time soon (I am only here because of the Arb case, but due to the fresh air of toxicity introduced by Fred Bauder, I think it is time for me to drop even that). I do hope Wikipedia can improve, though I am not optimistic.--Konst.able^Talk 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some issues, but doesn't every Internet or real life community have its problems? We're not a utopian society, and neither is any of the other societies that exist (including Citizendium). Ideally we want to make changes and fix problems, but we must look at reality. Reality was meant to be in sharp contrast to ideality, and we must accept our current predicaments and expect corrections of problems are not bound to happen. Nishkid64 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine too many people willing to give their real names at Citizendium. You're hanging yourself with that one. Your expert editors are limited to people that don't give a damn about their privacy. In that case, I wouldn't trust the expertise there any more than here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know very well about that as well, which is why I was cynical about it myself. I won't try to argue that this is irrelavent, because I am myself not completely convinced on the naming issue, but what I admire about the project is that it acknoledges that there is a problem and tries to fix it. I don't think Citizendium is any harm to Wikipedia either, even if Citizendium has some initial success and then flops (though I hope it doesn't), there is no doubt that there will be at least something produced out of the experience that will be useful to Wikipedia (even if it is just the mainspace contributions that can be transferred here, but I am thinking more of the community structure). But what I am saying that the concerns raised by Larry Sanger and a bunch of other people are legitimate concerns that Wikipedia should try to address rather than ignore.--Konst.able^Talk 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, I tend to disapprove of places that require loyalty oaths, uses weasel terms like "compendium of knowledge", and a focus on bullshit terms like "family friendly". Not to mention the idea that things like notability or NPOV is based on "the preponderance of opinion in the English-speaking world". Spare me. The concerns raised by Larry Sanger are there to attempt to criticize Wikipedia and benefit from the publicity, while not acknowledging their own ideals are likely to piss people off in huge groups. Insulting the contributors who do the maintenance work here only reinforces for me the idea that the ArbCom came to the right decision concerning you. Enjoy Sangerpedia. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit confused by your statement. I think if you look through my contribs you will find that most of them are maintenance work and probably only several hundred are actual non-maintenance article contributions. I would never insult anyone doing maintenance work as that would make me a hypocrite wouldn't it? I am just saying actual article contributions are more valuable. And it is quite skilless, I mean to write a wonderful article such, as say Demosthenes, and pressing a block button on vandals doesn't really compare in skill levels does it? That does not mean in any way that people should not do maintenance work, or that they are idiots or that they are wasting their time. But I do regret not spending as much time on articles as much as I did on janitorial work. I see no offense in what I said.--Konst.able^Talk 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it's odd that you take such offense at someone linking you to WP:DNFT and yet you return to another public forum here attempting to stir up the beehive again - i.e. trolling. Why does everyone insist on expounding to the uneducated masses on why they left Wikipedia and why we're all doomed? It's getting very cliché and boring. Why not just leave quietly? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if he's got a few possibly-valid points, he comes off as pretty whiny and petulant. *Dan T.* 03:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, feel free to ignore it. If it's getting cliché then maybe there is a problem don't you think ;-) Wknight94's attempted ad hominem strawman arguments in putting words in my mouth don't even warrant a response.--Konst.able^Talk 04:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been following your leaving dance for a while - are you every actually leaving? I think you have some valid points but I'd agree with others, when you make such a big deal about leaving in the first place but then pop back every couple of days... --Charlesknight 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Citizendium have a lenient sockpuppet policy? Do PhDs get more than someone with a masters? What if that person holds a non-doctoral terminal degree, like an MFA? Is the maintenance of properly-spelled words a requirement? Questioning minds...Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish and deletion of talk page

Can folks please look at User talk:Wakemp and its history? It looks to me like there's no reason not to delete the page, and yet... several admins have decided not to. I am confused; what's the reason for not deleting this, especially in light of the points made on this version of the page...? -- SCZenz 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User pages are no problem, and they're done routinely, but user talk pages are a different issue. Since you're mostly deleting other users' contributions, not the departing user's, then the CSD don't really apply. A courtesy blanking would be uncontroversial, IMO... Titoxd^(?!?) 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Ed. conf.) Only rare exceptions for user talk pages, since they contain information about the user's past activities. I think blanking the user talk page for leaving members is the best thing to do. No real reason to delete it unless there's material which needs oversight. – Chacor 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see:

• m:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?
• Jimbo's comment

...all of which indicates that deleting a user's talk page can be done when a user wishes to vanish. --Stéphane Charette 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User page: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally (see also m:Right to vanish)." Emphasis mine. It has very little support within the community except for OFFICE matters. – Chacor 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline, as well as m:Right to vanish (in addition to Jimbo's comment when this recently came up!) all seem to indicate that it is perfectly valid. I understand it isn't done often. So if I have to ask for just such an "exception", then consider this my request. The user in question left Wikipedia after a very stressful time dealing with bitter AfDs. He specifically requested that his user page and talk page be deleted. Right-to-vanish guarantees a user such rights. We should honour the user's request. --Stéphane Charette 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And he can request that. And he can easily have his user page deleted. But user talk pages are very specifically NOT deleted under most circumstances, as Chacor said, generally for OFFICE matters. The fact that several admins have chosen NOT to delete the talk page further reinforces this: it's just not done. You can blank it and move on. If you want to vanish, leave: if you're not planning on coming back you shouldn't care what your user talk page says. If he really cared, he could request a bureaucrat change his user name. But in essence you've already made the request and it's been denied by several admins. Since when do we go admin shopping here? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like S charette broke 3RR on the usertalk page in question. – Chacor 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "shopping". I am curious to know why the page had been deleted when the user in question left Wikipedia, and now more than a month later the page suddenly re-appeared. People blanked the page and the request for deletion. I reverted it to get back the explanation and the user's request to delete. You're not going to all of a sudden claim that I'm in violation of 3R while we blatently ignore the the right-to-vanish rule that specifically allows talk pages to be deleted, are we? m:Right to vanish specifically states:

However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. [...] Delete your user, user talk and subpages

--Stéphane Charette 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is unresolved. We either need to modify the right-to-vanish page and the guideline to explain that right-to-vanish is not supported by the community, or someone who can delete pages (IANAA) needs to delete the page in question. We cannot claim that we have something, yet not provide when we're asked. --Stéphane Charette 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is a page on meta, local wikis frequently have their own policies on things. --pgk 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does right-to-vanish link back to a page on the English-language Wikipedia explaining what to do? --Stéphane Charette 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but meta != en, I would guess it originated on en and was moved there as a more general concept, en wiki policy moves on but meta reflects the original concept. --pgk 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of inconsistency in all of this. Talk pages of vandals are deleted all the time. The question I ask myself before deleting someone's talk page is: will deleting this page hide evidence of sockpuppetry. If not, I usually grant their request and indefinitely block them as well so that an admin has a chance to undelete their talk page should they return as I've previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive57#Blocking_on_meta:Right_to_vanish. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason stated for not deleting user talk pages as specified by 'right to vanish' is the hypothetical need to access past information about the person written there by them and others. As that information would be readily available to be viewed or restored from the history of the deleted page I don't see much validity to that argument. The reasons for deletion are clearly spelled out on the 'right to vanish' page itself... most notably the fact that it is detrimental to Wikipedia to needlessly antagonize people by insisting on maintaining a record of them they do not want. Why do we always go to such lengths to humiliate and infuriate people for no appreciable gain? --CBD 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to argue that user pages could be deleted but talk pages should not, but I am coming around to the idea of deleting both. Assuming a person wants to make a clean break, there is very little in the talk page that would be of current use, and if the editor comes back under a new name and begins acting up, the talk page can always be undeleted. Thatcher131 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that as long as the user truly vanishes, the talk page should be deleted on request. However, if the user returns, then the page should be undeleted. Prodego ^talk 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was one of the primary issues, there were several people regularly leaving, having there talk page deleted and then reappearing shortly after. --pgk 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I recently came accross someone who after being caught in some misconduct had their acounts "vanished" - It turned out that the person in question was already at least on their sixth account trying to hide checkuser and sockpuppetchecks. A blanked talkpage is as good as vanished, as searchengines don't pick them up. But having the history available when a similar pattern of conduct appears is worth keeping it. P.S. The case under discussion here had moved the talkpage elsewhere anyway Agathoclea 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be handled on a case-by-case basis, but in general I don't see what is the objection to deleting the userpage of a user who is truly disappearing. We should be particularly lenient in allowing deletion of talkpages belonging to users who were editing under their real names or easily identifiable usernames, made mistakes, and don't want the mistakes following them around on every Google search for the rest of their lives. It is unfortunately when an editor becomes so alienated from the project that he or she not only no longer wants to contribute, but feels a need to sever the connection that formerly existed. However, when that occurs, it is submitted that the (former) user's feelings should generally be respected unless there is some overpowering reason not to. As noted, admins can still review deleted pages and that should be good enough to access information that might be needed for any legitimate Wikipedia-related purpose. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that in this case, the username is the person's initials followed by his last name. --Stéphane Charette 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I put back on his page the {{dbuser}} tag? --Stéphane Charette 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have discussion stalled, or are there no objections anymore? --Stéphane Charette 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information in Shirley Phelps-Roper

Earlier today, Nlu attempted to remove personal information posted by User:63.226.199.142 and User:Zoraks from Shirley Phelps-Roper. However, Nlu's page history deletions did not actually remove the personal information, and falsified the edit history to make it appear as though I was posting the information, when in fact I was removing it. I request that this information be properly removed from the page history of the article. Thank you. John254 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism + Whole list of nonsense pages

See this edit. Dupek73 (talk · contribs) replaced the page Israel with a redirect to Mateusz Małota, which is a redirect to Łukasz Hajduk, which is a redirect to Skurwysyn, which is a redirect to Huj, which is a redirect to Anal, which is a redirect to Anus. He also created Kamil Stemplowski. That's one account of vandalism and creating 5 totally useless nonsense redirect pages. This edit which was his first is also not very promising. Neither is this. Thus, I am requesting a long ban, since this user has very strongly indicated that the only reason why is here is to vandalize. Also, his userpage says that he does not understand English. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted all the redirects, blocking him for disruption for 48 hours. Since he has only two warnings, I am willing to give him a new opportunity, but anyone else can change that to indef if necessary. I will keep an eye on his future contributions. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is a vandalism-only account, then why waste your time creating a lengthy entry on it here? Just report it to WP:AIV as a vandal account and let them give it an indef block.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Indef block given as vandalism-only account. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, 'skurwysyn' is Polish for 'son of a bitch'. One of the few Polish words I know! Proto::type 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving mesages on protected talk pages?

How do I leave a message on a protected talk page? The page in question is User talk:John Reid. I thought protecting a blocked user's talk page was only done in extreme circumstances? Carcharoth 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. I've suggested to the blocking admin that he might want to bring this situation to the noticeboard for comments. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no clear justification for the talk page protection, and no explanation on the talk page of why this is done. Is it common practice to pick on blocked users these days? Friday (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is some colloquy in deleted/reverted edits on that page that makes the story a little easier to follow. Newyorkbrad 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an explanation from Philwelch there: "If you're blocked for disruptive editing of a talk page, you don't get to use your own talk page as a surrogate." I do think that Philwelch should have sought a second opinion on all this though, as he was clearly involved in a dispute with John Reid at the time. Ironically, on the talk page of WP:WHEEL, so if other admins do get involved, someone will inevitable use this as a WP:POINT example... Carcharoth 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the user, as a matter of principle, requests that other admins not unblock, but comment on the block and/or consult with the blocking admin. It's an odd situation, overall. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had unpleasant memories of User:Philwelch. Some months ago he went on some power trip and blocked some editors he had a content dispute with. Other administrators warned him not to abuse his blocking tool, but he went on and blocked some more including me. Dionyseus 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs or links to show that? Carcharoth 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[23][24] [25] [26] and here's the archived ANI discussion involving Philwelch: [27]. Dionyseus 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those. Together with Philwelch's block log where he blocks himself several times, this is not the sort of behaviour I'd expect to see in an admin. Do I really want to think, if I happen to run into Philwelch on a random talk page at some point in the future, that he is someone who could block me for no apparent reason? Carcharoth 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Newyorkbrad: that is indeed a general principle that John holds. One that I agree with. No-one should feel, especially for short blocks, that it is something worth wheel-warring over if the blocked user himself doesn't feel that way. Much better to suggest the blocking admin reconsiders and undoes the block himself. So if anyone does feel the block is unwarranted, please do say so. And ditto for the protection of the talk page, though that is probably a separate issue. Carcharoth 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In general though, shouldn't there be a way to disable the ability of a blocked user to edit their talk page, rather than completely protect the talk page? That leaves non-admins unable to leave messages, when the aim seems to be rather to prevent the blocked user from using the talk page to carry out personal attacks on the blocking admin (which wasn't the case here, in my opinion). ie. have two blocking options: (1) Ordinary block (everything except user's talk page); (2) Full block (including user's talk page). Protecting a user's talk page must be covered in the guidelines somewhere, surely. Anyone have a link? Carcharoth 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the talk page, absent a solid reason for it to be protected. Friday (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to unprotect the talk page myself and leave it as such so long as John doesn't continue acting abusively. John's been acting very aggressive, trying to seize control of the discussion and make everyone talk about things on *his* terms. While this certainly constitutes being a jerk, I felt further discussion was the best avenue until he began repeatedly using deceptive edit summaries. This is a tactic I've run into before (User:Copperchair), and my understanding is that deceptive edit summaries are considered completely inappropriate by the community. While I do think that not blocking people one is in a dispute with is a good rule, it's a difficult one to apply with individuals who simply create disputes with everyone around them. Philwelch 05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Phil. I've posted a note on your talk page asking for diffs showing these deceptive edit summaries. I'd be grateful if you could provide them. I had a bit of trouble getting to your talk page, as when I clicked on the link to your user page (above), the link didn't seem to work. Do you know what's happening there? Carcharoth 06:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The link went from blue to red. Someone's deleted it. That'll explain it! :-) Carcharoth 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It has become increasingly common practice for some admins to protect the talk pages of blocked users (or even in one recent case a 'warned' user)... especially when the admin themself placed the block or was otherwise involved in the dispute. This, along with things like forcing users to keep warnings displayed on their talk pages and blocks for 'disruption' that consists primarily of edit warring with the admin, are a depressing trend that needs to be stopped. More and more admin abilities are used to enforce the views of individual admins... rather than to uphold consensus as intended. John Reid was being disruptive, but Phil wasn't a model of civility either and nobody's benefit is served by this. --CBD 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that Phil's actions were disruptive as well. What I'm more concerned about is that, as Dionysus pointed out above, this isn't the first time Phil has acted like this. How many warnings do admins get before something is done, or do admins have more freedom to push the boundaries than non-admins? I know blocks are not punitive, but they are a permanent record on a user's block log, as opposed to digging up diffs several months later. Is there any point in a 1-second block to record something in the block log, or does that just inflame the situation? Where should the balance lie? Carcharoth 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An RfC can be raised. Nobody is immune from accountability. Here I agree that Phil's actions were immoderate, it would have been better to leave a message here. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User: 24.47.221.227

This individual from IP address 24.47.221.227 is making repeated vandalism on the page Green Day. I have not investigated other vandalism possibly made from this IP, but I feel action should be taken due to the amount of vandalism made by IP 24.47.221.227 on one entry. -PhattyFatt 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report vandals to WP:AIV. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I blocked the user for 24 hours. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 75.110.225.220

An individual from IP 75.110.225.220 is vandalising many different pages, usually adding in information about an individual named Martin Perez, and performing other vandalism. Thank you. -PhattyFatt 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report vandals to WP:AIV. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 48 hours. Thanks. Nishkid64 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

Think these two edits should be removed from the page history if possible? [28] [29] Stefan 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed them. Anyone with oversight might want to remove them permanently? --Majorly (Talk) 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page history mess created by multiple cut-and-paste moves

Please could somebody take a look at the page histories for Britney Spears' fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original Dolls (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Original Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and merge them? I was going to do it myself, but my head started spinning when I tried to figure out which page to delete first. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest combining Original Dolls (album) and Original Doll, and then combining those two articles with the first one. Hbdragon88 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ecopave Australia nonsense

There is an editor on several IP addresses blanking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopave Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) of all mention of Ecopave Australia, obviously to whitewash their history of their edits. The relevant discussions are obviously Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled garden / spammers, Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16#Ecopave, and the AFD discussion. I have requested offwiki that Khoikhoi sprotect the pages, but the IPs used should probably be checked for open proxies as these are their only edits.

• 58.166.253.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.71.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 144.131.164.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.217.85.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All protected, all blocked. I don't think they're proxies, however. All the IPs are located in the same city (Melbourne). Khoikhoi 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's probably User:Fact Finder, who was blocked a couple of days ago for the above concerns. There's some other links on the user talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And Fact Finder can, to be blunt, fuck off, for the reasons I stated on his Talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the unintended consequences of spamming Wikipedia. Ironically, the sooner it's caught, the better for a spammer's reputation, since Wikipedia's high Google ranking means that spam notices, AFD discussions, and talk page warnings bubble up to the top of Google hits. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Ecopave spammer's actions will have elevated our debates about the Ecopave spamming to the top of the Google results fior Ecopave, GEO320 and mastic roller hybrid? How terrible. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection can fall off

This is a general note to admins involved in deleting and restoring protected or semi-protected pages. When you delete and restore revisions of a protected page, you can end up removing the protection completely without actively unprotecting it, and without even knowing about it. If you do such activity, please check the protection status afterwards - don't rely on the logs. Here's one example of many: [30]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'd second that. Make sure you reprotect after you delete/restore. Alphachimp 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it simply the case that deleting a page cancels any and all protection upon it? (Radiant) 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it need to be reapplied if the protection is still needed. --FloNight 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of vaporware

An anonymous dynamic IP keeps removing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. from List_of_vaporware. Both me and another person has reverted his rmeoval, last time two references was added but the person keeps removing it. I've already reverted the edit twice now, how should this be dealt with? Debolaz 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me as if the game in question is no longer vaporware. The dev website gives a release date "officially fixed as Q1 2007". The IGN review is dated 11 April 06, and the Cnet site is undated; the dev website news release is dated June '06. From the information provided, the IP seems to be correct in that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is no longer vaporware; rather, it is actually going to be released. Since the release date (Q1 07) is perfectly sensible, and there is no other information to the contrary that the game won't be released, it no longer appears to fall under the category of vaporware. That is, unless there are press releases/other sources that say anything to the contrary. Ourai ^т _с 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained to the IP, this game has had release dates *numerous* times before, people has been invited to play it before. But then the release date closes and suddenly it's pushed to next year. Essencially, what you're describing here has happent several times in the past already. It is _because of this_ that people and notable sources which was listed claim it's vaporware. Based on this exact same thing happening several times already, it's highly probable that the game won't be released in 2007 Q1. In my opinion, based in this history, the game should be listed as vaporware like Duke Nukem Forever untill it's actually released. Debolaz 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But, for Wikipedia purposes, can anyone point to a reliable source for any of this information? That means not comparing one source with another and making a judgement (that's WP:OR). If anyone can cite a source that says this is vaporware, then it's vaporware for Wikipedia purposes. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the last removal. Sources was listed. Debolaz 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The sources listed there were published before the developer announced the newest release date. From what I can see, the most recent information says that it is going to be published, same as any other game. If anything else, the fact that they have playable versions of it going through testing indicates that significant work was put into the product; if there's already a working build out, cutting the entire project at such a late point in development seems especially silly. The dev says it's going gold in Q1 2007; unless there is a newer source than it (July) that contradicts, it appears to be a legitimate game, and not vaporware. Ourai ^т _с 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is just a repeat of history. Thing is, nothing ever happens despite of marketing and release dates. Say we keep it off for now, are we going to have the same discussion when the release date is pushed back again, and they publish a new release date again or can we keep it on then? Yes, my question assumes it will be pushed back but that is with a very good reason. Debolaz 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could split the difference: have a section of the article for "Past nominees" (or whatever). You could list this game there, with information about previously announced releases that didn't come to pass. The reader can then decide if he/she thinks the 2007 release will happen or not. John Broughton | Talk 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the whole page a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? Even if it had hard and fast and clear criteria for inclusion (not just perpetually slipping release dates, but evidence that the software is heavily promoted) it would still be speculation and 'extrapolation'. If the page deserves to exist, it should look at history, not into the future. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What about renaming to something like "List of software considered vaporware"? Debolaz 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That would make it clearer that there's OR involved, but it wouldn't fix the problem. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I am not going to go any further with this case. I'll leave it with this notice and the community can figure out what to do with the issue if anything. Debolaz 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Skulltag AfD

Would a few admins take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skulltag? The article about a source port of Doom that (from my research) is non-notable, but it seems Skulltag's community picked up on the deletion and a number of it's members are protesting. There have been no votes in the deletion discussion despite it running for almost five days, so I'd like to ask if it at least one admin could keep their eye on it. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, the AFD has now been overrun by meatpuppets vying to keep the article intact. Hbdragon88 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, now that there's been several votes, can someone (who hasn't yet participated in the discussion) close this AfD before it really gets out of control? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. A lovely little thread they set up on their forums about Wikipedia and its' users, as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What the devil is going on here? Goading them probably isn't the best idea ever. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. As there isn't already enough trouble already...really don't need this headache. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...well, it wasn't me, and by the sounds of things it wasn't either of you two, I seriously doubt it was Hamedog (the closer). There's a couple of other editors, although they seem well-respected enough. The only other "Delete" !voter is an IP, so I can't verify whether he/she would do such a thing by determinance of their reputation. Nonetheless, whoever did it should quit, and pronto - this is bad enough, without inciting further hatred. Please, whoever it was (if you are reading this), stop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: AFD is not a vote. That some 'voters' are biased, new, or socks of unbanned users does not matter, so long as the closing admin does their job properly. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about the IP address is that IP addresses can't create articles anymore, so I was wondering if that 4.*.*.* was going to go through with his promise of recreating the article every single time it was deleted. Anyway, I voted delete, but I didn't registern an account to goad them, though I was tempted to. Hbdragon88 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted out of process, and has been restored. The final count was 4 keep, 5 delete, which is not nearly a consensus to delete. Owen 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you wish to challenge the closer's decision you should take it to DRV instead of wheel-warring to restore the page. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't wheel-warring, I was exercising WP:IAR in response to administrative actions that bypassed policy. I fully intended to take the more bureaucratic approach if another administrator intervened, as you have. Owen 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Trax disambig page overwritten with article

The disambiguation page at Trax[31] was overwritten with a large number of edits by User:Kinemagigz and a few unregistered users. The band may be worthy of an article (I'm not sure) so I'm not sure how to resolve this without munging up the edit history. — Miles (Talk) 01:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The text came from http://www.kinemagigz.com/'t'.htm#Trax and had only been given trivial modifications. shotwell 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Correlation does not imply causation as per CSD G6

Would someone have time to look at this article ? The main reason I am asking here instead of just leaving it in the backlog of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is because a "copy-paste-blank-create-redirect" move was attempted, and the whole thing is getting a bit messy (to me at least, although I have removed all the redirects and reverted the blankings). The rationale for the non-controversial move is at Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title. Either a move by an admin or a deletion (I can do the move afterwards) would be fine, if someone can do it. Many thanks, Schutz 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:Robdurbar for doing the move ! Schutz 15:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff I cannot be bothered to deal with

I'm having some revert problems with a user, TheEvilBlueberryCouncil (talk · contribs). It's over some incredibly trivial stuff, and to be honest, I can't be bothered to deal with and engage with the user in question.

Said user seems to think YTMND is relevant to an encyclopedia, so much so that he keeps on adding YTMNDs every time I remove them. We have such genius editors such as this who believe edits like this and this aren't absolutely worthless. I can't be bothered to deal with this user, I'm not wasting my time on endless reverts of YTMND links over a handful of articles, someone talk some sense into him. - hahnchen 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted a few of the user's contributions (the other reversions to user's own revisions appear to have already been reverted by someone else) and left a warning message. Should this user persist, I will take further action. Let me know if you need any further assistance. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How to get an archived article deleted

How can I get deleted the following articles, I have had discussions with people concerned in regards to these three article and their contents, and apparently because these articles have been edited to the extent that they are no longer factual but distorted and out of context they should be therefore deleted. Also because these three pages serves no real purpose in Wikipedia other than paint the ECOPAVE company and its trademark protected words Trademark dilution in bad light bad faith,Fact Finder2 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Miscellaneous/2006_October_16#Ecopave
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws

Fact Finder2 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are archives of discussion pages, and should not be deleted. They are preserved as records of prior discussion. Prodego ^talk 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several threads relevant to this near the bottom of the Help Desk. --ais523 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely. If he wants to appeal his block there are ways of doing so, but this is mere block evasion. Chick Bowen 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet more bollocks from this bunch of spammers. I have also had a threatening email, stating that unless we excise all mention of Ecopave's spamming then the "truth" about our appalling abuse of Ecopave (read: reversion of their spamming campaign and good-faith attempts to get their employees to contribute productively) will be published on the Ecopave Australia website. Only it was written EC0PAVE AUSTRAL1A, an obscurantism for ECOPAVE AUSTRALIA, despite the fact that (as a private email) it stands no chance of being placed on the web where it can damage Ecopave's Google results. I'd say that Fact Finder (and the associated Ecopave spam accounts) shows evidence of ridiculous levels of obsession and we need to be on the lookout for more of this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

XFF headers and AOL

I might be crazy, but I think AOL finally came through with the XFF headers, anyone else care to test this out? Make sure this isn't a fluke--172.161.181.23 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, it was in the wiki account email today infact. Mike _{(T C)} 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone quietly took notice of the fact that AOL was blocked. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Admitted stalking

Following opening an RfC against me, User:A Link to the Past has begun sifting through every edit I make on a daily basis and leaving little notes on my talk page about what I need to stop doing. He's already admitted to it and rebuffed several polite requests to stop, so I'd really like it if someone else would take action here. --InShaneee 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

fiveminute.net: huge WP:EL violator?

This Web site has 100 links within Wikipedia as I type this; most link to five-minute parodies of television series episodes. Ignoring the fact that this site gets some 16,000 Google hits, is there anything anyone can see that indicates any of these links should survive here? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked out a couple - I find nothing notable about the site, it's links or it's shitty parodies. Flush on sight I say, they add nothing at all to encylopedia articles. --Charlesknight 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Same thing I saw, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

is there a quick way to delete them all in one go? or am I racing you to be the first one to delete 50 of the links (there are a lot in star trek enterprise episodes). --Charlesknight 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The number actually was over 190 (I forgot to click on the larger numbers); I'm working from the bottom, if anyone has time to jump in. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell I there was a lot of them - thanks also to Matthew for help me and RK killing many of those off. --Charlesknight 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a tyvm is in order. What bothers me is that those involved knew that "[s]ooner or later someone will go after the rest too" and decided to not be proactive... RadioKirk (u|t|c)

• This sounds like a job for the m:spam blacklist. (Radiant) 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke

Okay, here's the scoop: RobJ1981 came to me requesting help regarding edits made by TJ Spyke. He made allegations that the user was reverting other people's edits for no good reason, and that he was violating 3RR by using a sockpuppet (Edgecution). This was proven by Essjay at WP:RFCU#TJ Spyke and despite this verification, Spyke stated that it was his brother who was on the other account. I find this hard to believe as they appeared to be defending the same edits in the article WWE New Year's Revolution. A CheckUser clerk, Daniel.Bryant, also pointed this out stating that he couldn't believe that these two accounts were being used by different people. Judging from the article history of WWE New Year's Revolution, it does appear that TJ Spyke has been reverting many user's edits to the page without discussing or contacting the users he reverted. Anyway, as per the RFCU, Essjay requested the admin body to overview the decision and do whatever they please. I'm personally involved in this matter, so I am refraining from doing anything in this matter. I'd also like to point out that TJ Spyke has violated 3RR on multiple occasions, and I speculated he was using the sockpuppet to avoid a block. Nishkid64 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ tends to control articles, in my opinion. New Year's Revolution is just the most recent one. I remember at WWE Cyber Sunday, he would remove the official name of a match. After many reverts and a discussion at the talk page, it was finally left alone by TJ. How exactly can others help on wrestling articles, if edits just get reverted with little to no explanation? Wikipedia articles are for everyone to edit, not for one user to control an article and revert anything he sees fit with no good reasons. RobJ1981 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked TJ Spyke for 48 hours for continuing to edit war on that WWE page. Edgecution is more likely a meatpuppet if anything as opposed to a sockpuppet. Not sure what people want to do about him. -- Steel 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The argument might be moot - Image:Newyears2007.jpg and Image:Newyearsrevolution07.jpg are going to be deleted as unsourced here within the next few days - I already deleted Image:Newyears2007.jpg. --humblefool® 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two technical questions

1. What is currently the first page at Special:Unwatchedpages? and 2. How do I edit the text at Special:Specialpages? I think it's about time Special:Ancientpages had a more accurate description. But I can't find a MediaWiki page that has that text. Chick Bowen 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first page is [[]], for some reason (yes, I just typed [[]] there, because it is a page with the Empty Title; this is probably a software fluke). Regarding ancientpages, the text is here: MediaWiki:Ancientpages-summary. (Radiant) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh. Well, thanks, but I still don't get it, so I guess that indicates this is over my head technically and I shouldn't worry about it. Chick Bowen 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New {{COI}} template

I just created (okay, copied and modified another template to make) a "conflict of interest" clean-up template. Feedback is not only desired, but begged for. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. However, when will it exactly be used? I mean if it's used right when an article is about to be speedied, there seems to be no point for it. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Nishkid64 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's for the cases where the subject is slightly too notable, or potentially too notable, to speedy. Sometimes we WP:PROD these or slap notability tags on them, but a tag referencing WP:COI may be more precise. Sometimes the problematic article is not vanity per se, but the author did all the original research on the subject, and published it in a vanity press or a website somewhere. Anyone remember Leonardo Ciampa and Lorenzo Perosi? I like the tag; it may be the best way to approach this problem (which is a huge problem, for those of us who do newpage or recent changes patrol). Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is too specific of a tag. If it's a speedy candidate, the creator of the page is not supposed to remove the tag. Anybody can remove a PROD tag. Concerns about original research, references, etc. should be tagged with existing templates and a possible conflict of interest (if there is one) to be described as so. I really don't see the need for a special template... Hbdragon88 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's intended as a more specific version of {{advert}} and/or the {{vanity}} tag but applied to non-bios, as in "This subject might be worth an article but maybe it shouldn't be you writing it." This article created by A Greater Gift (talk · contribs) -- note the name of the parent organization of the article subject -- was what prompted this. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since NN vanity articles can already be handled under WP:CSD, it would seem this template is only useful on notable subjects that happen to have a "COI". Accordingly, maybe you should remove all the talk of deletion and rephrase it more like "someone else should rewrite this, previous author, please make suggestions on the talk page". --Dgies 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's less WP:BITEy than {{advert}}, and that is good. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect implementation of the extension of an RfA

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#24_hour_extension_incorrectly_implemented. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. I would have fixed it myself, but I would prefer that an admin review the situation if a bureaucrat is not around (message also left at WP:BN and at the talk page of the bureaucrat who did the extension). Carcharoth 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move help

I already posted at WP:RM but there seems to be a 3-day backlog for uncontroversial moves and I'd like to resolve this before bed. Can someone please help move Champagne (beverage) to Champagne? All thats there now is a redirect with no history, but I think MediaWiki is getting tripped up because of the previous move of Champagne to Champagne (disambiguation). --Dgies 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Done. I don't know what the issue there was either. I didn't go digging for double redirects, since I'm going to bed too, so you should probably check if there's any left over. Opabinia regalis 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted doing a few RM's recently - the tricky part is that a lot of the discussions don't show consensus after the 5 days. That leaves (a rather high rate of) relistings, or closing the discussion as having no consensus. Both are hardly ideal - any ideas on how to make this work better? Perhaps list on WP:RFC as well for the really controversial ones? enochlau (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive Image Deletion

An admin, User:Betacommand, today deleted several hundred fair use images, including many that were marked with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. There is no indication that User:Betacommand considered any of the reasons for the disputes on the images talk pages before proceeding with what looks to be a blanket torching of these images. Now, many of these images had, I think it's fair to say, fair use issues... but many were entirely appropriately sourced, tagged, with copyright and source information, etc. My question: Is this deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Jenolen 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how that giant backlog got cleared so fast. I commend him for deleting the non-disputed ones but I wouldn't have deleted the disputed ones without reviewing the reasoning, which I doubt he could have done in the amount of time those were all deleted. VegaDark 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at the delete log, it might have been possible to open them in tabs and then take a couple second glance over each one. In some cases it's obvious enough to do it, in others it's not. In terms of official policy, I hate to say it, but the backlog is massively massive, things seem to be tuned for speed more than detailed looks. If you have any tips on how to make it work better, it might help things out :) -- Tawker 08:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The criterion allows for a full week before deletion, giving ample time for anyone who wants to dispute that an image is replaceable to mount their argument. I only found one example where someone had disputed whether the image was replaceable, Image talk:Wayne McCullough.jpg, which really isn't reasoning at all. Did you find any other examples? --bainer (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have (now dead) links to several images - and the associated talk pages wherein I'd made my fair use cases -- listed on my user page. Jenolen 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The question now is did the admin use a deletion bot? I ask that since I saw this on the blocking log: "01:17, 28 November 2006 Dragons flight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Betacommand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Using an unauthorized deletion bot)." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, adminbots get shunned by the community, I guess it could be a peice of javascript though, one button to do the work of 3. Really, I have no idea - -Tawker 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had placed a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg and provided a rationale in the tag. I'm not sure the fair use claim was ironclad, but it probably at least warranted a few seconds of thought by an admin. --Dgies

I have blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as Zscout370 noted before I got here. His deletion log demonstrates that he deleted >1500 images in less than 2 hours, which amounts to less than 5 seconds per image (actually its even less because of a couple gaps of ~10 minutes). Regardless of how he accomplished this, any process that acts with bot like speed requires a bot approval. Since I can find no evidence of any such approval (and would be very surprised to see it since I7 requires human attention to identify and resolve disputes), I have acted on the assumption that this behavior is unapproved and blocked Betacommand for a week for operating an unapproved admin bot. Dragons flight 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to note that his bot appears to have made no notice of {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} or any accommanying talk page discussion, so I expect there are more than a few people who have been upset to have their arguments ignored. A few of these have already commented at Betacommand's talk page. Dragons flight 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

deletetion every 5 seconds is manualy posible. But for 2 hours?Geni 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder blocking an admin does not restrict their admin abilities - kind of an interesting thing to note -- Tawker 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

certianly used to limit them somewhat.12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Well I did ask for help with the backlog, carefull what you wish for I guess... The place is ready to blow over this issue already. Just flat out automated deletion of everyting tagged was probably not the wisest move. I think we just proved everyone who has been complaining that reasonable complaints are ignored right. I'm all for enforcing this, but let's try not to turn the entire comunity against it in the process shall we. --Sherool (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had an image that I had contested the delete of image deleted by Betacommand without comment in this recent set. I have been involved in the discussions about the use of promotional tagged images at some length in the last two days. I resposted another image to the same page, and it was immediately marked by User:Abu_badali for deletion. The same user then has attacked dozens of images uploaded with a promotional tag in only a few minutes, using the argument that any image marked with a promotional tag should be deleted because it could hypothetically be subsititued with a free image as long as the person is living - in this case many of the images marked were provided by the artists to me directly, inclusing some because no free or even promotional image existed. User:Abu_badali then began marking other images such as CD covers I have posted with the so-called rationale they should be deleted because few pages linked to them, which would delete 99% of the album cover images on Wikipedia, as well as likely 98% of all images. This is an obvious personal attack, and yet another example of editors gone wild, which I am now expected to spend hours contesting every one of these CSD's or have someone destroy hours and hours of legitmate work and Wikipedia page layouts to match. I ask for admin assistance on this issue, please, this type of stuff is getting insane on here. A review of User_talk:Abu_badali, and now comments being posted on my page, indicate this user engages in this kind of behavior on a repeated basis. I have never asked for an Rfc before, but there is certainly a need for one here, in addition to a block. The timing of the original issue might also suggest a sockpuppet relationship between Betacommand and Abu badali. And as a Wikipedia user and professional journalist, is it just me, or is there a motto on Wikipedia that for every person engaging in this kind of attack behavior there are a dozen apologists? Tvccs 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay admins and apologists - if there was any question about intent, harassment, legitimacy, use of a CSD bot, etc. regarding User:Abu badali - in the middle of his dozens of CSD requets in a few minute span of my images was an image he deleted from the Cadillac Catera page. This was not an image I'd created, it was a free image from another user and marked as such, it was simply one I'd replaced with a promtionally tagged image at one point, which was then reverted, and which I'd subsequently left alone. Abu badali removed a completely free image from a page, the same type of image used to illustrate hundreds of cars on Wikipedia, using the rationale "23:04, November 27, 2006 Abu badali (Talk | contribs) m (rm purely illustrative use of unfree image per WP:FUC#8)". I am completely sick of this stuff, and of the people that apologize for the type of behavior exhibited by this and similar users. Is there anyone sane that has a bot thay can remove his CSD's? Tvccs 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And now I get to offer a clarification/correction - it appears the image that was removed from Cadillac Catera was the one referenced below - not the free image at the top of the page, which I thought was the case as in checking the top image tag, it indicated it was no longer linked to any page, and I thought I was seeing a cached page version which still had the image after deletion. Everything else I stated stands, and that was hopefully the only image I've uploaded without a totally clear source. I'm so glad NOT to be dealing with this. Tvccs 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See my note on your talk page: if you can't manage to comply with the requirements of a tag which you yourself selected to place on the image when you uploaded it, your case is thinner than Janet Jackson's excuse. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen and replied - I see the image had already been removed before I even had time to clarify the tag - see if you like the clarification, as the image still exists in an orphaned state, and if so, restore it please. Tvccs 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've deleted that image under CSD I6, since you didn't provide a detailed fair use rationale. Like it or not, we haven't accepted with permission images for a long time, unless a valid fair use claim is made, and at least since 4 May this year we haven't accepted images tagged only with a generic fair use template and no detailed fair use rationale. These requirements are not hard to meet, and were in place long before you uploaded that image. And even though it's deleted now, we have image undeletion so if you can provide a detailed fair use rationale (and proper sourcing information too, Yahoo Groups doesn't count), I can undelete the image and we can all be happy. --bainer (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear what Betacommand has to say about this accusation, although I'll admit it looks pretty serious. He was only recently granted adminship, so if he is misusing it, perhaps those powers should be revoked. A bot with admin powers would be strictly regulated and unlikely to be approved and he would know that. He is also a member of BAG so I think this probably has implications for that as well. His talk page has a concern about blocking misuse as well. Apparently he blocked an ISP proxy calling it an open proxy. I don't know much about this case but thought I'd bring it to attention here. -- RM 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interiot once clocked me doing image deletions at 7.3 seconds, but I'd already checked each one and opened a billion tabs. That's not sustainable, of course, because you have to go through and get another batch ready. This has to have been bot-assisted in some fashion, if he kept up that rate for two hours. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well at 5 seconds per edit, that isn't so fast as to necessarily require bot approval. And if it was manual-assisted bot, then it doesn't strictly need bot approval either. The issue here was that a bot was possibly used with a) administrator access and b) that the actions performed were not correct. The latter action perhaps requires a hand slapping and a warning, but running a bot with administrator access performing an administrator function, even if assisted, is questionable at best. Nevertheless, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if nothing went wrong. Still, at minimum the block was justified. -- RM 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well for one minute I managed to get down to one delete ever 2.4 seconds but there is no way to keep that up. Especialy if you are dealing with challanges.Geni 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's think about this logically then. Clearly he wasn't dealing with challenges, as is well evidenced. So if one were to simply be misusing admin tools, you could easily maintain a fast deletion rate without the use of a bot. Perhaps that is the case here? We're making the assumption that a fast edit rate is not possible without the support of a bot, but that's assuming proper deletions, which clearly did not happen here. It would seem then that a bot may not have been used, but only a misuse of administrator tools. Still a serious problem of course. -- RM 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no you can't mentain a deletion rate that high for any length of time (I just deleted 30 images in under a minute but only because I spent the previous few minutes doing setup) and physicaly it will start to hurnt after a while (blisters pain in joints whatever). For long term sustained rates you do less preloading which slows the deletion rate. If it posible to delete once every 5 seconds without prep that is right on the edge of what is posible (I'll run some tests shortly) which means there is no way you could keep it up.Geni 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we simply ask him how he did that instead of speculating? He appears to be around now. (Radiant) 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But then we miss the chance to start up competative speed deleting which might keep our backlogs clear once and for all.Geni 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I assumed that since the Images in question were in the category, and that it was backloged I assumed that the disputes for wether or not the image should be deleted had been resolved. I modified my version of firefox, for a short time to allow for clearing this backlog. I set it up so that if I middle clicked a link it would open up the deletion page with the Image and the preset summary. I also had it set to autosave, and close the tab. That is how I mananaged to get the speed. Looking back of the Incident that was not a smart idea. The reason that I set that up was because of the massive backlog. But I see that i should have been more careful. Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) quoted from his talk page. (Radiant) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since BC states he was not using a bot and admits his mistake, I think we should unblock him so that he can help fixing it. Thoughts please? (Radiant) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the block so long as discussion happens here dealing with the issue. I'm not sure what is meant by the comment "Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete?" Does this mean to imply that it wasn't a big deal since only a few may have been incorrect or is this an honest question for some other purpose? -- RM 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant "mis-delete", not "missed deleting". (Radiant) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

going by follow up comments probably not. I've pulled the block. I can't cheack for autoblocks though.Geni 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering how many Images that I had made an error on. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? -- Well, if you didn't look at the disputes going on on any of the image talk pages, then, technically, 1500. I'm not sure why we're supposed to do your job of going back and looking at all 1500 images, and finding the ones that were inappropriately deleted, when this should have been done the first time. They all need to be looked at, and for more than an average of five seconds. Look, I don't mean this to be snippy, but it is very frustrating to play by the rules, learn about all the image tags, upload some images that do make articles better for Wikipedia users, work with admins to get the image tagging and licensing issues all settled... then have the whole thing blow up because a few Wikipedians decide to change the policy on promophotos. Very, very disheartening, and like I said, I don't mean to be a downer about this, but today, Wikipedia is NOT as good as it was before the promophoto jihad began. Also -- NONE of the images I uploaded, that you deleted, have been restored, even though I am one of the editors who left a message on your talk page. You can find of list of the images in question on my talk page or by using your bot. Jenolen 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Images that were brought to my attention. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A good many actually, it appears you didn't check for disputed tags, which actually say to keep the other tag as well. I reuploaded the only one on my watchlist no problem, but as not being an admin able to check the tags on the deleted files I can't really give you an exact number --T-rex 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a few of these a while ago, the ratios were actually pretty high for disputed tags, of those not all actually had any dispute, but even then a good amount did. I would be uncomfortable giving exact percentages though. If you feel like a dispute was deleted before being resolved, or even if one was resolved to keep and then deleted anyway, bring it up at WP:MCQ and someone will fix it for you. 1500 might be too many for betacommand to do all alone. Does anyone think there needs to be an improvement in the dispute procedure? Currently most of the disputes are just 2 people arguing back and forth until an admin deletes, at which time no one is informed of the decision. This has to be balanced with the fact that any additional steps will only increase the already high backlog on this section. - cohesion 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, now, I've noticed at least one of the orphaned image talk pages -- wherein the case for keeping the image was made -- has been deleted by another admin, because, you know, it's a talk page with no "article." Which is, of course, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. Sigh... So can we be bring back these ~1500 images, and their associated talk pages? Or has this ship sailed into Wiki-seas from which there is no return? Jenolen 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fast action by User:Metros232 restored the specific talk page I referred to above, but I still fear that much has been lost. Metros suggested a temporary hold on {{db-talk}} activity, but we're well beyond my level of Wiki-comprehension. Jenolen 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G8 says an exception to the deletion of orphaned talk pages is made for "talk pages of images on Commons". This won't be the case here, as these are fair-use images on Wikipedia (I think). But just in case this does apply, I thought I'd point it out, as these exceptions to the rules are easy to miss sometimes. Carcharoth 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about user talk pages/Rfc's? I have a fair use image that was being compared and dicussed to a free image that was removed from a Rfc Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok page beacuse it "no longer linked to any page". Thank you. Tvccs 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Growth cone vandalism?

Paskari (talk · contribs) pointed out a possible piece of vandalism at Growth cone, but it's not really WP:AIV-material, because the vandalism is not in progress. On August 25th, Spaghettimonster (talk · contribs) added the sentence "It has more recently been shown that cell fate determinants such as wnt and sonic hedgehog (shh) can also act as guidance cues." This seems like textbook vandalism, so I've removed it from view. I don't know growth cones and I don't know Spaghettimonster. Is this vandalism, and is this a problem user? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm the Sonic hedgehog protine is involved in cell growth so it isn't an imposible claim. This is what happens when you give geeks a free hand in nameing their discoveries.Geni 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Drosophila biologists make up the best names for some of these things, and when the mammalian homologue is discovered, the name usually sticks. Thatcher131 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my precise area, but since Sonic hedgehog and wnt are cell signalling pathways (see wikified links above) it's probably not vandalism. Thatcher131 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world was Geni reverted?! —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(False alarm apparently - reverter hit the wrong button...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

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

Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Intermediate sources: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis is indef blocked per request. [32] --FloNight 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unjust Deletion: Please reconsider...

• Moved to WP:DRV. (Radiant) 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism going on

There's someone patiently vandalising Anton Chekhov today (and other articles, it looks like). I'm loathe to tackle him myself in case he starts sabotaging my userpages. Would appreciate an intervention, preferably final. Cheers. qp10qp 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a link to Porn on one of your pages

I don't know where to go to report this...I'm not a member and have never been to the site before. All I know is, while looking up information on Uruguay, I was suddenly directed to a porn site. This link was under "Foreign Relations of Uruguay" under the External Links section. When I clicked on "Embassy of Japan in Montevideo" it took me to megapornvids.com. I am horribly embarrassed and very upset that this happened. Please make sure you fix that as soon as possible. It makes me afraid to click on anything on your site. It is not a good impression for someone like me who is visiting this site for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.187.66 (talk • contribs)

It's been removed, thanks for pointing it out. --W.marsh 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cripes, that's been in there since March. Foreign relations of Uruguay must not get much activity... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. That's not good for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the site. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bluelinks that should be redlinks again

Dear Admins, I don't know where to request this so I will put it here: There are several pages that were created but are empty. Because they have been edited, the links appear as blue thought they should be red. This concerns the archives Talk:Christianity/Archive 34, Talk:Christianity/Archive 35 and Talk:Christianity/Archive 36, which will undoubtedly be filled in time. However, the current status is very confusing for someone doing the archiving. Could some admins please delete these pages, turning the links red again. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD

Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Wikipedia:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [[33]]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you. NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) NinaEliza

I've contacted Hkelkar about this. I have the feeling that he just got the datesmixed up, as he has declared in email to his advocates (myself and User:TheronJ) that he is on a wikibreak until 19 December from today. I'd therefore request that if any action is to be taken, we leave it until tomorrow (UTC), and if Hkekar is still editing, he should be warned before any other action is taken. I think the allegations of Hkelkar not actually taking his finals are a bit out of order, as I have no doubt that he is, and we need to WP:AGF in any case. Another admin will want to review this, I'm sure, as I'm implicitly involved in this case, but I thought I'd offer what I've been told to the discussion :) Martinp23 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The message by NinaEliza here was also posted here. Martinp23 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no administrative action to take as the motion for a continuance has not been voted out yet, therefore it is not in effect. However, continued editing may indicate that the request was not made in good faith. I have called Arbitrator Fred Bauder's attention to the matter. In the mean time, if you believe Hkelkar is impersonating someone else, you may wish to add evidence to the evidence page. However, the real life identity of the editor doesn't really have bearing on any possible sanctions or remedies in the case. (It may, however, be related to the method he used to "prove" his innocence of sockpuppetry charges. If you believe this is not sufficiently addressed in the case, please add evidence to the evidence page or a proposed finding of fact to the workshop page.) Thatcher131 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning IP vandals

What is the policy for blocking IP vandals? I always thought they had to have been recently warned, as historic vandalism could easily be a different person with the same address (unless there is clear evidence to the contrary), yet I've seen multiple IP addresses blocked for vandalising after a final warning when that final warning was weeks ago and they hadn't been warned since. --Tango 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log; speaking only for myself, some of the blocks I've done today involve the same type of vandalism from some IPs that resumes weeks later... because they had been blocked much if not all of that time. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The block that prompted my question was actually one of yours, User:206.154.80.162. I don't see any similarity between the current vandalism and the previous vandalism beyond the similarity that you commonly get between completely unrelated vandals (they generally aren't very imaginative, after all). --Tango 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This one on the 15th and this one today were all I needed :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind, people often don't know what their block duration is until the next time they try successfully to edit. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some admins block after an IPs first edit (I won't mention names but this person blocked over 250 people in one night when I found that example). Really, what is the point of watching someone say "poop" and "penis", etc., etc. four times before blocking? By now, several of them know they get four shots so they keep going to test4 and then stop. What is the real risk? How many times have you seen a vandal say "poop" and "penis", get a warning of some kind, and suddenly reverse himself and start making meaningful edits? If that happened, I would be more worried - but it doesn't. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly; as long as those are short blocks. It's impossible to get a gauge on an IP's history—how many people connect to it, how long it will take Mr. Poopy to grow up, etc.—with one edit, but a short block to make sure the damage stops is fine. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people may be testing whether they really can edit, and they might be doing that because they think it is funny. Prodego ^talk 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(To Prodego) Back to my point, how often do you see someone testing to see if they can edit by adding "poop", etc., and then suddenly they start editing like normal people? I don't think I've seen it once. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not too often, but every once and a while I find a few who do. But weeding one positive contributor out of a hundred vandals is worth the effort of giving a polite warning, at least in my mind. Prodego ^talk 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if we get someone who "gets his four shots and stops", the purpose of warning them is for them to stop. Blocking is used when they don't stop. If warnings make the vandal stop, then we've accomplished our purpose. As for the original question: it depends. If a vandal is making the same type of vandalism that he was [almost] blocked before, then feel free to block without further warning. If it seems like a different person, start again. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any IP vandals that have turned into good editors, but I know plenty of vandals that have stopped after being warned. (Who can say if they would have stopped without the warning, but nevertheless, a block wasn't required.) Remember, you don't have to go through the test templates one at a time - you can jump straight to the "This is the only warning you'll get" template (which I can't remember the name of - I normally give test2 and then test4 in bad cases) if it's blatant vandalism and couldn't possibly be mistaken for experimentation. Regarding the case discussed above, I'm not how conclusive repeating the final letter of "fuck" is for determining that it's the same person. Especially when the edit on the 15th was a single edit with weeks of nothing either side and only got a warning from a bot. The extra effort of adding a warning template and seeing if the stop before blocking them is tiny, and it can save unnecessary blocks. We have no idea how often anon users try and make a useful edit, discover their address is blocked because of someone else and just leave - I doubt it's that unusual. --Tango 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no ironclad policy; it's very much a judgment call, and different admins will react differently—and, I've been wrong before. In this case, I remain sufficiently convinced. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if they haven't been warned, I will still block the user if the user continues to vandalize. See User talk:204.98.2.54. That user has not been warned today, but they were last blocked on the 14th for repeated vandalism. I blocked the user for 6 months as he/she is a returning vandal and continues to vandalize regardless of being warned. Nishkid64 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That case is very different - the user had been blocked and had started vandalising almost as soon as the block expired, it's safe to assume it's the same user, so immediately blocking for long makes complete sense. --Tango 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Account Deletion Request

Hello,

I hope this is the right place to go. If not, be so kind as to help.

Please delete my account. Far too many random people and random administrators are fighting over it, especially today, and I have been disheartened by this entire random and hostile Wikipedia culture.

If you have any questions...I dare say...post a message...but I fear it may be reverted by a random user or administrator anyway.

Please delete it. Editing has been made worthless. Thank you. Rememberkigali 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.-If this account cannot be deleted, I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely. Rememberkigali 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarify, please? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The closest we can get to deleting your account is deleting your user page (which doesn't exist anyway) and user talk page. Any more than that would leave gaps in the edit histories of any articles you've edited, which would cause licensing problems (we have to be careful to credit people correctly). I can't remember the exact policy on when user talk pages are deleted, but I can't see it being a problem in your case. If you want it deleted, just say so here and I'm sure someone will do so (I'm off to bed soon, so it won't be me). --Tango 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

hum.. AGF and all that but look at the user history of that account.... well.... --Charlesknight 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF concerns aside, "I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely" is too close to a threat to let slide. This may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and indef the account. The user talk page will remain. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly AGF regarding the forum comment - it sounds to me like an innocent misunderstanding of how things work. If you're going to indef block the user, you might as well delete their talk page. We don't need a record of warnings given to a blocked account. --Tango 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• If possible, I would prefer that the talk page remain - this user account was created largely to accuse me of vandalism, and the talk page history includes both my attempts at dispute resolution and the various warnings that RememberKigali got. If he/she shows up again under a different name, I would prefer to have the history available in case this ever ends up in RFC or ArbComm. Thanks, TheronJ 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be blanked, then. --Tango 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I had delved into the user's edits prior to the block and was convinced that the request to delete the "account" (read: the talk page) was likely an effort to hide the evidence (what I meant when I wrote "[t]his may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and indef the account"). The seeming threat to go public with the account iced it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. TheronJ 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek

Hey, would anybody mind closing this down? By WP:SNOW (it's obvious it will go to deletion), but mostly because it's a severe case of WP:DFTT for the author of the article, who is, quite frankly, acting like a real jerk to the voters (read the history, and you'll see I'm not overstating). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kimchi.sg 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Current events portal

The current events portal is showing yesterday twice with today's events listed under 28 November at the top of the page. I can't figure out why so I would be grateful if someone could have a look at it.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism two subpages down; I've reverted it. --ais523 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User continuously repeating same edits

In Goldfrapp article user Samuel.hinch@hotmail.com‎ endlessly repeats same edits (changes genres, and also some images), despite being reverted all the time, with general consensus not on his side. He also has very bad editing style (apparently he does not use preview) with up to 10 edits following in rapid succession. I request ban of user Samuel.hinch@hotmail.com‎ from editing the article.

P.S. Sorry for using URL to link to his user page - because of @ in his username, normal linking does not work! Futurix 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the User name. They have been asked twice now to pick another one, but haven't. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New guideline Wikipedia:Version to protect

This subject has caused much aggravation on Wikipedia, and if you know of any previous attempts for solving it (other than "Wrong Version", which I think is unhelpful), please let me know. Otherwise, please try to find some holes in it. If you find that you agree with the proposal, let's try to make this a guideline. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a proposal to find "the right version" to protect. It's foolhardy. All it does it add ammunition to people involved in the edit war. I don't want to know what would happen if this was used during a heated debate. It'd be bedlam. We already have people who don't believe that admins are ever neutral. This just adds fuel to that fire. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to these concerns on the talk page of the proposal, where a healthy discussion is in swing concerning this proposal. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk pages

I found this Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion that says "a bot will begin blanking these pages per the discussion". That was in March, and the category now contains several hundreds of IP addresses. Does anybody know the point of this? (Radiant) 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive9#IP_talk_pages, looks like it ended up being a "meh don't delete them, just blank them"...so we should prolly either blank the talk pages and decat them or maybe just decat them. Syrthiss 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can set a bot up to blank these if you want.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose then that we should get rid of the category. Since that involves editing all those pages anyway, we might as well use a bot to blank them once. Doing this on a regular basis doesn't appear to be worth the trouble. (Radiant) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam socks

There's a list of single purpose accounts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Spam only accounts. The contributions are clearly part of a coordinated spam campaign. Apparently abandoned and no immediate danger, but they might be sleepers. What is the procedure to deal with those? Am I right to assume they may be blocked indefinitely without needing further warnings? (excluding the IPs of course) If so, should I add a (not quite appropriate) {{spam5i}} or would a simple "spam only account" in the block summary suffice? Femto 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee

This user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Wikipedia violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. He currently has been adopted by The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if that is enough. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. ----Maniwar (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery IP

I'm not certain where to post this, but an IP registered to the National Portrait Gallery (London), 217.207.85.50 (talk · contribs), seems to pop up every few months to slap on a copyright violation directly at the top of certain articles ([34] [35] [36]), most recently yesterday at William Herschel (as such). This strikes me as extremely unprofessional if, in fact, the person really does represent the NPG. I left a note, but I believe this calls for direct attention by admins, if for the copyright question if nothing else. Thank you. --CalendarWatcher 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as something Wikimedia needs to deal with directly, and not for admins. - hahnchen 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:BradPatrick. Chick Bowen 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of thing crops up from time to time. Galleries and libraries who own paintings may mistakenly claim they hold copyright to any images of the works of art or claim that they must give permission for those images to be used. However, many countries uphold the idea that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional works of art are public domain themselves. Aside from trying to educate them (which likely won't go over well), there's not much we can do other than remove these notices. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many museums (at least in the U.S.) do own the copyright on images of their objects. They limit photography, let individuals use the photos for their stated project (book or whatever) and retain copyright over any use beyond that. I am not familiar with UK law at all, but the gallery's website states the following: "We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with the us and that any further reproduction deriving from the resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission." link to relevant page I'm not saying this person is right about these photos, but they certainly could be. I'm far from an expert in copyright law, but I am pursuing graduate studies in museum studies and this subject came up recently in one of my classes. Of course, they can claim that they have copyright and not actually have it as well. But they frequently do. Dina 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. For the US see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In the case of artwork that is public domain, images that merely reproduce the artwork can not be copyrighted because copyright protects creativity and there is nothing creative about making a reproduction. The purpose of limiting reproduction is to maintain the market for their own reproductions, of course, but while reproducing an image might violate the museum's agreement with whomever made the original photograph, its not a copyright violation on our part to host the image. I don't know about the UK. Thatcher131 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

UK law is irrelavant as the Foundation has no presence in the UK. Raul654 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Without endorsing Raul654's comment, this has come up before. No action has been taken by the Foundation in this regard.--Brad Patrick 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Law school must have entire courses devoted to teaching how to write sentences like that. Thatcher131 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery are big enough and scary enough to take on Wikipedia if this were serious. They will have taken legal advice already. This is a token protest, they are probably advised not to risk a test case. The British Galleries collectively would not want to risk an outcome similar to the "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp" they prefer things left as vague as they are. Giano 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

12.154.254.227

This ip is vandalising those articles: Agim Ceku and Kosovo Protection Corps

Review of Indef block of SuperDeng

SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked, apparently without consultation. After a series of blocks for personal attacks and other bad behavior he was finally banned for one month with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#User:SuperDeng_II.

The ban was extended to two months for sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as Lokqs (talk · contribs) (only after the ban) but also as The Green Fish (talk · contribs) (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation.

SuperDeng has e-mailed and posted numerous editors asking for the indef ban to be lifted. I think it should at least be reviewed. The choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (If he can't stop using sockpuppets, a rolling series of one month bans would amount to an indef ban anyway.) I don't have a strong opinion either way as I have never encountered him outside of my role as checkuser clerk. I think his complaint that an admin has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior, and the fact that his sockpuppets are so easily detected shows he hasn't yet learned how to work within our system. Thatcher131 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of much disruption from this user, therefore blocking him indefinitely without prior consultation was harsh. His habit of sockpuppeteering is ridiculous and even harmless, as he is dyslexic and easily recognizable. I urged him to stop using sockpuppets for no apparent reason. If he perseveres, I will support an indefinite ban. So far, I am inclined to give him another chance, as his behaviour is not really disruptive (if I don't ignore some compelling diffs, of course). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not banned, only proscribed. I would suggest that if puppetry is the full extent of the problem then ArbCom is the logical step, and a request for an emergency injunction to use a single account pending what would presumably be a final resolution to the same effect, but I have not yet gone through the contribs in detail (I bet puppetry is not the only problem). For those others who wish to do so, these are the identified socks:

• Beenhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cvaltnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klingoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bignra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gipornm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fgbvnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mblafg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nickmolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toadfootre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be others. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. well, if those are socks, then I'd say he's a bit obsessive but not a vandal. Some of the edits are completely sound, others need taking to Talk, but there is some evidence of engagement in Talk - this does not look like your run-of-the-mill POV pusher, more like an editor with strong opinions. I'll go through the edits of the main account as well, I think, but there is nothing obviously wrong with several of the edits of the sock accounts, and none of them are self-evident vandalism or trolling. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture yet. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeals

It seems to me that a blocked or banned user has very limited means at their disposal to appeal the block or ban. If they want to go to ArbCom to appeal it, they will have to use a tedious mechanism of edits-by-proxy via email. The vast majority of bans are entirely uncontroversial, unambiguous trolls or other abusers of the project, but there are some users who get caught up in disputes which perhaps escalate beyond the point of no return, to the regret of all. I have now had two or three users email me about this kind of thing, and there is a discussion on WikiEN-L at the moment as well.

It seems to me that we have three ways of dealing with this:

1. Unblock the account on the strict understanding that it is used solely for the purpose of appealing the ban
2. Allow the person to edit anonymously or (for privacy) through an openly declared alternate account, again solely for the purposes of appealing the ban
3. Do nothing.

Or maybe some other option I haven't thought of (quite likely). I have to say that option 2 looks a bit contrived, but I also think that simply unblocking indef-blocked accounts is likely to be perceived as asking for trouble. If an account is restricted to WP:AMA and WP:RFAR, for example, I don't see it matters much either way whether it's a role account or the main one. That said, a carefully-worded exception to the ban evasion clause of WP:SOCK would not, in my view, expose the project to much risk, as the mechanism for dismissing frivolous cases at ArbCom appears to be reasonably effective.

Clearly this is not intended for the unambiguous cases, but for those where there is a decent history of productive edits with perhaps one spectacular piece of foolishness which is regretted in hindsight. nobs01 (talk · contribs) is an example: I believe he has a sincere desire to contribute to the project (and yes, he could always wait a month), but has discussed the issue in perfectly civil terms on WikiEN-l; it may be that a request to ArbCom would convert the ban to a topical ban or parole. Or I could just be falling prey to Mary Poppinsism again, who knows. Anyway, I thought I'd start a debate because it seems to me that we ought at least to think about it. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any examples offhand, but I thought historically this was handled by unblocking the account and limiting their participation like you suggested. I would think they could easily be blocked again if they didn't keep to the arbitration and advocate pages (or perhaps there talk page also) or if they continued whatever foolishness got them to this point in the first place. Its also possible that some of the folks over at WP:AMA might be willing to devote time to acting as proxy in the case that someone wasn't able to be unblocked for whatever reason. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding #2, beat to a pulp then beat the pulp. The last thing we need is official sockpuppets (no matter what the stated reason).

I would go with #1 or with #4, they post their arguments on their user talk page and ask another editor to post them here. This would only apply to community bans; arbcom bans must be appealed to arbcom. And regarding nobs specifically, his one year block expires on Christmas Eve eve (or Boxing Day minus 3, depending on your continent), which is way sooner than any arb proceeding is likely to take. Thatcher131 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, some requests are turned round pretty quickly. Cases not so, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is similar to that of Shell. The blocked editor can request arbitration through (ideally) an arbitrator or (if absolutely necessary) through some other trusted proxy individual. They can either request at the same time that they be unblocked for the purposes of participating in the arbitration (usually the Arbs are amenable to considering such requests, and I've seen Arbs make specific conditional unblock recommendations in their case acceptance statements) or request an injunction to that effect as soon as the arbitration case is opened (I've never seen such a request denied without very strong grounds).

In cases where an editor would like to have the length of his ban reduced, I would think that emailing an Arb requesting that a Motion in a Prior Case be filed would be sufficient; there's not necessarily a need for an entirely new Arb case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some banned editors have made it clear that they are not interested in participating in the dispute resolution process in any way except disruption. Others, yes, need ways to appeal, but those can usually be arranged either through their talk page or through e-mail. I do not see this as a major problem. Chick Bowen 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Need review of endless ongoing situation

The failure of an administrator to enforce an arbitration has resulted in a situation where a user keeps making edits, posting POV flags, and engaging in endless circular and idiosyncratic claims regarding the classification of far right groups.

See the recent request for enforcement and the long discussion which went nowhere here

See the requestr for another aDMIN TO REVIEW here

See the post today which is the exact claim that was refuted in arbitration and for which the user was placed on probation here

What is it going to take to enforce this arbitration? This is an enormous waste of editing time and energy.--Cberlet 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From a quick review, it looks to me like Intangible's edits on Far right have become disruptive. He has repeatedly added pov tags, seemingly on the theory that it is in principle impossible for Wikipedia to assemble a list of far-right or far-left groups. Tomorrow I will apply the arbcom remedy and ban him from the page for a week, unless I have misunderstood what is going on. Comments invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom campaigning images

T-shirts? [37] [38] --Ars Scriptor 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a premium Cafepress account; it could happen very, very easily. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I'll take 3 Tawkerbot for ArbCom t-shirts, size medium.

Seriously, so long as the campaign ads aren't giant signature banners or WP:NPA violations, I don't see any harm in it. --tjstrf talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and give me your credit card number while I print them up... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Political banners and slogans should be prohibited. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Like tjstrf said, as long as they aren't breaking actual rules, I don't have a problem with them. If they bleed over into other namespaces, it'd be a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx. This isn't the attitude that we want to foster: we want a healthy, co-operative community, not political parties and factions. Snoutwood (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If we start seeing banners that say "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" or something similar, then I'd agree that it runs counter to a co-operative community. Multiple users vying for a single position doesn't quite count (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that these should be deleted as per CSD T1: Templates of a divisive nature, but am refraining from doing so until there;s been some discussion. By their very essence, they promote campaigning and factioning, which shouldn't be the point of the election. This is a bad idea, and shouldn't continue. For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. Snoutwood (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot have political parties, just individuals. There's a difference between campaigning for a person and campaigning for a platform, and no sufficiently divisive issues have come up (which revolved around the arbcom at least) to be the basis for such a thing. The only thing even close to a party philosophy is deletionism/inclusionism, and those have nothing to do with arbcom. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hasten to point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion (et al.) and Wikipedia:Esperanza to give you two quick examples of Wikipedian political parties. They are certainly possible here, and very much exist: after all, all a party is made of individuals... The point is, having a big "VOTE FOR X" stamp promotes the idea that Wikipedia is about competing philosophies, not about writing an awesome collaborative encyclopedia. We are, or we should be, about consensus and common ground, not bickering, infighting, and creating divisions in the way that a "FloNight Party" or a "Daniel.Bryant Party" does. Snoutwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how ArbCom elections are run the probability of factions forming based on this is fairly small. They strike me as humorous boxes not doing any harm. If in the future there becomes a problem we can deal with it then. JoshuaZ 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

images != templates, so they can't be speedily deleted. You could run an IfD on them, though I doubt it'd pass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights

This page has (as of right now) the wording:

"In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)."

Someone pointed out the inconsistency with WP:FUC and recent enforcement efforts, and I figured it was a simple matter of fixing this to refeer to the state of the actual fair use policy itself. But after a couple objections I was reverted because aparently this "unilateral policy change" had not been debated at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights itself. Pointing to miles of debates elsewhere and pointing out that WP:FUC and WP:CSD disagree with the wording on the page had no effect and they insist that this is not sufficient consensus to change such a central policy page and so forth... I was half way though writing a lengtgy sarcastic rant about how silly it is to insist that one our of 3 policy pages remain unchanged and "out of step" with the other two pending further disuccsion, all the while the two oher policy pages are the ones that are beeing actively enforced, but I though better of it and descided it may be more productive to see if anyone else have any ideas on how to resolve this without causing more drama. --Sherool (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)