Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

  • August 5 - August 13 2005

Everyking 3 arbcom case closed[edit]

The arbitration committee has indefinitely suspended the Everyking 3 arbitration case after IRC discussion led to the following agreement between Everyking and Snowspinner:

Everyking voluntarily agrees to avoid commenting on, second guessing, or otherwise alluding to Snowspinner or Snowspinner's actions anywhere on the Wiki. Everyking will, in short, pretend Snowspinner does not exist. Everyking may politely converse with Snowspinner on user talk:Snowspinner or user talk:Everyking. Everyking is also free to bring an RFC or Request for Arbitration against Snowspinner if he so chooses. Beyond this, Everyking's editing privileges will not be affected

Because someone is bound to mention it - yes, we realize there is no enforcement clause. Everyking is on his honor to abide by the agreement. If something goes horribly wrong, we'll reopen the case. →Raul654 *** 06:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ya... it's the comments about admins that have begun to irk me. His main namespace edits are par excellence (is this the correct obscure French term?) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
not really, you may be looking for exquisit or nickel :) dab () 07:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm assuming it expires in a year, since no time is mentioned? Everyking 07:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
since this is allegedly a voluntary agreement, I suppose it depends on what exacly you have voluntarily agreed to? dab () 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I agreed to it under the threat of much worse happening if I didn't. Therefore I'd like to know when I can go back to speaking freely without having an ArbCom case automatically reopened. Everyking 08:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
did it occur to you to ask the arbcom that question at the time you 'agreed', rather than the admin noticeboard (where you are much less likely to get an authoritative answer)? dab () 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree (in what is I think an almost identical response to the last time I commented on EK on this page) that this is not the place for this discussion. Whether or not EK should have gotten this clarified prior to making the agreement, I can live without settling (though I do think that would have been a good time to raise the issue). What I am positive of is that a question should be directed directly to the AC on an AC page (perhaps the talk page linked to in Raul's comment, but I don't think anyone need follow my advice to that level of specificity). I'd like to see this section of the AN not become a battleground, and I feel that's a reasonable hope? Jwrosenzweig 09:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was one of the things that was floating around in my head, but there were other issues to settle and in the end I never remembered to ask about that. Everyking 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
in any case, my (unasked for?) advice to Ek would be to consider the agreement to last for a year. If you can really keep out of another arbitration case for a whole year, I am sure everybody will be very happy and pleased, and if you do jump at Snowspinner's throat exactly 356 days from now, well, it will at least have been 365 days' respite for everyone. dab () 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It isn't up to me to say whether there'll be another case before then. Well, there will be another case in the sense that I have an appeal coming up in October, but I mean aside from that. Anyway, I don't appreciate this whole attitude you have about it. You are making it sound like I'm the bad guy and if I lay off it'll be a "respite". Everyking 09:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
no, I don't pretend to know anything about the case. If you prefer you can parse my comment as, 'if you ignore Snowspinner for one year, he will hopefully have no pretext for picking on you'. The upshot (assuming he will ignore you, too) will be a year without rehashes of this arbcom case, which will be a good thing. dab () 10:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the case needs to be re-opened.... --Carnildo 07:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? Everyking 08:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The policy requiring courtesy on the part of all Wikipedia users remains in effect. Fred Bauder *** 18:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania coverage[edit]

A bunch of links that may be of interest:

Wikimania 2005 Aug 5-7 - Programme - Listen live

It would be nice if we could perhaps highlight this on the site over the weekend. I talked to Jimbo on IRC and he suggested a front page box, but said that he felt he couldn't do it himself. Dan100 (Talk) *** 14:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a full width box of about two or three lines depth above the featured article and in teh news boxes? Speaking as someone who is lucky enough to be, it is certianly worth listening in to what you can as already I've learned a huge amount of interest. Thryduulf 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - in fact I think there's a commented-out announcements box on the main page. It will only be for 48 hours. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Disruption/Blocks[edit]

1) Can an administrator use the term "disruption" (without providing evidence to back up the term) to block and/or censor an editor they dislike? 2) Where can an editor notify about Admn. disruption and abuse? 3) Can I file a formal complaint? See noticeboard/incidents for example. Thanks.69.209.223.164 18:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well reallize that the evidence is in the edit history both ways. Both the disruptive edits, and the blocks. Presumably this is about the blocks by User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin. It appears they have some good evidence of personal attacks and other disruptive behavior. And to answer the question you wrote but removed "Can an Admn. block, based solely on the editor, but without focusing on actual edits themselves?" is yes, absolutely they can. If you don't want to be blocked simply follow the policies, use common sense, and make all good contributions. It's not really very hard. I presume they have some pretty good evidence, and I'd like to see some of it, because if they don't, then removing your comment from AN/I is improper. - Taxman Talk *** 20:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, Taxman. You are damn right their conduct is improper. These two editors (and usually Jpgordon following not far behind) have been abusive and utterly dishonest. They have been WIKI-STALKING me for the last week, reverting edits without discussion. The issue in a nutshell is they believe that one must have their imprimatur to edit topics they guard POV on, viciously and jealously. They are controversial administrators, I am not the first editor to note it, I will not be the last. I have been editing in good-faith, they have not. Let's review these so-called disruptive edits. Each and every single block has been disruptive and dishonest. For some reason, these three have targeted me. Nobody else seems to want to Wiki-stalk me but them. 69.209.223.68 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not familiar with this case, but just for the record I'd like to point out that 'wikistalking' isn't disruptive per se, nor is it a violation of anything. Everyone's edit history is a matter of public record, and you can't blame people from looking through it. That said, reverting without discussion is a bad thing, as is guarding POV. Radiant_>|< *** 07:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rollbacks of edits on sight, without reason or discussion, automatic IP bans in clear violation of WP rules, are what jayjg and SlimVirgin have been doing. Please take the time to review, if you can. I ask any Admn. to review this. Some of my comments from the Incidents board have been deleted. Plus the "Jews did Apartheid" page, my comments on Talk have been censored and deleted. My edits are in good faith, please review. Thank You.69.217.195.90 04:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Page renamed, seems pretty accurate; let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Three editors have been very disruptive: Controversial editor Jayjg, and SlimVirgin and Jpgordon. Thank you, Josh Gordon for finally admiting that Jayjg's page-name is poor. It is a false statement from Jayjg. Review my edits in detail. Please. Please review the harassment and disruption of the 3 editors. I know what's right and wrong, and in this case you guys are terribly wrong.69.209.198.105 06:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • This is a cracked pot calling the flyswatters black kettles. He's been blocked for 3 months, and just keeps going and going and going and ... Tomer TALK *** 06:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think calling out 3 very good editors/Admins is very productive for you. I have not looked at their edits on the pages you state, but they are experienced and, charitably towards your case, perhaps they are short with their comments or talk because your views come off very POV or poorly written and in their experience is not appropriate for the article. --Noitall *** 06:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No offense to you Noitall but your response is symptomatic of the ongoing problem. I have asked repeatedly for some Administrators to review the situation. Taking a fly-by stance against an "Anon" without reviewing the facts, is what I have been saying happens all the time. Look at the fly-by criticism of Func. He has no idea of what we are even refering to. Nobody looks at the facts. Look, I know that I have been repeatedly harassed and disrupted by these editors/admns. About a week ago, after a month-long vacation, I returned to editing the encyclopedia. Immediately these 3 editors targeted me, and that sums it up. Let's see the so-called disruption they are talking about. Now, please....one more time, can anyone kindly reference what is so "disruptive" about my edits? Let's look at them and please lets see some proof. I'd like to get back to editing an encyclopedia, not deal with Jayjg's hatreds.69.209.216.128 07:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Would it be possible to set a bot flag for Schneelocke | (Contribs)? Although I'm sure his noting of images without tags is both useful and necessary, it's filling up the Recent Changes page rather quickly, and making it hard to follow the other edits. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You need a steward for that. Try m:requests for permission →Raul654 *** 22:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Closing[edit]

I'm curious about an aspect of VfD closing. When I run across a VfD where the consensus is to merge, but I don't feel qualified to do the merge, is it proper to close the VfD (adding the tags to the VfD page, removing the tag from the article, etc.) and put the merge template on the article noting that it needs to be merged per VfD? If it's going to be merged, then it won't be deleted (have to keep the page history) so couldn't the contributors do the merge, set the redirect, and save having it on the VfD to-do list for six months? What's the rule on this? -- Essjay · Talk *** 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can simply tag the article for merging (I've done it more than once) and close the VfD debate. --cesarb 14:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert?[edit]

Not sure where to post this, but anyway. I've noticed by chance that no voter at Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Zoodio, except the nominator had made more than 3 edits, all of them to their userpages or the voting page. Can somebody investigate? Circeus *** 14:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for page protection[edit]

Please when you protect (or don't protect) a page after a request at WP:RFPP, please could you post a note to say that you have (not) protected it even if you don't move it to the Old section. I'm finding it frustrating working through the list to find that some apparently unanswered requests have actually been protected. Thryduulf 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes admins will independently protect a page without being aware that a request had been posted at RFPP. -- Curps 15:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How exciting, I have a stalker[edit]

It may of course be coincidence, but suddenly -Ril- (talk · contribs) is popping up on articles for the first time, reverting my edits. I haven't checked, but has anyone else had the same experience, or am I honoured? --Mel Etitis (<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης) 14:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-'s been around since January 2005. If this user is suddenly reverting your edits, that's one thing, but I don't think this account was created solely for the purpose of stalking you. --Deathphoenix 14:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a particular editor's behavior, talking to them seems more productive than asking everyone else if they smell a rat. If you believe talking to them will not be productive or if you want the community to weigh in, start an RfC. You do not seem to be asking for comments on administrative tasks, so I don't quite see why this is here. JRM · Talk 14:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I really don't have an issue with the vast majority of Mel Etitis' edits. The revert today, which Mel Etitis view's as stalking, was down to Mel Etitis getting over-carried away reverting a POV warrier en-masse, consequently actually undoing one good edit, which I therefore restored. I have no-idea what POV Mel Etitis may or may not have, or whether it overlaps with my opinions in any way, or not, nor am I interested in the subject areas that Mel Etitis seems to edit. On the other hand, Mel Etitis does seem to have a problem with me, and is still adamant that I am a sockpuppet of User:Lir (the sole reason being that my username can be considered an anagram of Lir, as would also be User:Rli, User:Lri, User:Irl, and User:Ilr) despite this question being raised some months ago, and David Gerard stating that I am not. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

P.s. I would be interested to know what it is that so offends Mel Etitis so much about this Lir? I can see that Lir is banned for using sockpuppets to annoy User:Snowspinner, but I really still don't see the connection between this and Mel Etitis. Someone to enlighten me about this would be appreciated.
  1. I didn't suggest that the account was created just to stalk me — why did you think that I did?
  2. Talking to -Ril- is never productive (check his Talk page, and his interactions with editors in general).
  3. I'm asking if others (and especially other admins who have encountered and displeased him) have found him behaving in the same way. I don't rush to RfC (and not only because they rarely have any useful effect). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Technically an RfC ("Request for Comment", although "Request for Castigation" is the usual expansion) would be just the right tool to use. Technically. We all know it doesn't work that way, of course... but I sometimes like to pretend. JRM · Talk 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • -Ril- has been stalking me for approximately 2 weeks (I would have to check for sure) and reverted me perhaps going on a 100 times by now. He intentially targets you. I am not much in the way of battling (I think I had enough of it) him myself. I have attempted to get others to assist, but it is difficult because he is obstinate and threatening. He totally ignored SlimVirgin when she was trying to be helpful. I will put together those 100 edits and intentional targeting to assist if necessary (it really is unpleasant since he targets you, and it does not matter how much you attempt to discuss any issue, because he does not care about the issue, he wants revenge or something). --Noitall *** 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A similar thing happened with me about a month ago. After disagreeing with me on the Bible verses issue, -Ril- began mass reverting my moving of templates from the article to the talk namespace. A wholly unrelated issue to our original dispute. - SimonP *** 17:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I agree, it was wholly unrelated. It occurred because I had edited Lust [1] and therefore had it in my watchlist. SimonP moved a tag on that page to the talk page. I considered it inappropriate, and went looking to find out why he was doing so. Discovering him doing this en-masse, I resolved to revert these changes as there is no consensus for it. After Theresa Knott stepped in, I raised the issue as a survey of Wikipedians, the current state of that survey is, as I had thought, and acted upon, that there is no consensus for mass-moving the particular template in question from articles to their talk pages. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
-Ril- is up for two 3RRs at one time, for two entirely separate pages, two entirely separate events, by two entirely separate editors (who were not involved in the other page) -- pretty tough to do, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In the second, case it is for 13 Reverts! In that entire time, he did not edit a single word, he only reverted. In that entire time, he did not edit or revert a single edit other than mine. --Noitall *** 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Vigilante blocks[edit]

Since individual admins are not entitled to block people without warning for alleged "POV edits", could someone revert those:

  1. 17:23, August 5, 2005 PMA blocked "User:Thecunninglinguists" with an expiry time of indefinite (junk edits, POV edits and reverts, username similar to a sexual act)
  2. 08:03, August 5, 2005 PMA blocked "User:NoPuzzleStranger" with an expiry time of 99 hours (POV edits to Iraqi insurgency, attacks on other users, POV reverts)

(By the way, the "POV edits" in question consisted in the shocking statement that Iraq is presently under foreign military occupation, as opposed to... "under reconstruction" as Adam Carr and PMA would like to see it.) 62.233.250.42 15:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sad, sad. I won't unblock because there are people who are just looking for an excuse to accuse me of abusing admin powers, but somebody bolder (or less vulnerable) than me should do it. Everyking 15:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Thecunninglinguists should remain blocked indef. for username policy violation. While it's not exactly the name of a sex act, it is definately designed to resemble it (Cunning Linguist is a fairly common joke) and thus should not be allowed. I'm going to unblock for the other and reblock indef. with a "change your username" note. -- Essjay · Talk *** 15:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked the editor. The user name is a minor joke, and while it does resemble the name of the sexual act, it is not offensive. --Sn0wflake 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Also note that the similarly-named User:CunningLinguist has been editing merrily away since Nov 2004. To be fair, both of these usernames should get the same treatment - and IMO that would be to leave them alone. FreplySpang (talk) *** 15:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I was unaware of User:CunningLinguist; considering that, I agree the other should be unblocked (if they haven't been already). -- Essjay · Talk *** 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
User was still blocked (apparently I did my unblock/reblock after you did your unblock), so I have unblocked. -- Essjay · Talk *** 16:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be potentially confusing to have two users with such near-identical usernames? Maybe Thecunninglinguists should consider changing their name? Radiant_>|< *** 19:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, but that seems like something that could be worked out by talking it over with thecunninglinguists instead of imposing a new name. I think we have other sets of users with similarish names, although nothing is coming to mind closer than RickK/Rick Block. FreplySpang (talk) *** 22:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't put words in my mouth. I said "should consider changing" and you changed it into "imposing a new name". Radiant_>|< *** 07:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was somewhat surprised that Essjay started this by blocking rather than discussing with the user. When I saw that you were commenting here but not on the user's talk page, it seemed to me that you were proposing another block. FreplySpang (talk) *** 11:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I started with a block because I felt the username was inappropriate, like User:Cunt and User:Buttfucker. Granted, Cunnilingus is not as offensive a term as those two, however, I still felt that a username that was a direct effort to invoke a sex act was inappropriate and should be blocked. If we saw the name Felleightio, we'd block that too, or even something like SassHole. It was pointed out that someone else with a name that mimics Cunnilingus has been allowed to edit for some time, and as such, I felt it was inappropriate to have a double standard. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors where it hurts our mission, but in an area such as usernames, absolutely nothing is hurt by avoiding the appearance of obscenity when possible. We have a lot of minors running around this site. -- Essjay · Talk *** 18:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

(This comment is in response to "nothing closer to RickK/RickBlock above) I can think of two: Essjay (talk · contribs) and Essjay-R (talk · contribs), and Redwolf (talk · contribs) and Redwolf24 (talk · contribs), none of whom are connected (no socks or Doppelgangers). -- Essjay · Talk *** 23:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a linguist what is so wrong about that? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo and Vietnam War[edit]

Stevertigo (talk · contribs), on Vietnam War, reverted eleven times to his preferred version (reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Stevertigo), figuring, I guess, that the 3RR didn't apply to him. Maybe he was right, because User:Thryduulf didn't block him, but protected the page instead.

But it looks like that Stevertigo decided that the page protection rules didn't apply to him, either, 'cause he went into the protected page and reverted to the version he wanted. So has the "Ignore All Rules" exception become the norm, instead?

(And before anyone asks, it's a content dispute, not vandalism simple or subtle) --Calton | Talk *** 16:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't always check for 3RR violations when protecting pages, unless it is specifically mentioned in the request, they should be reported at WP:AN/3 anyway.
I protected the page blindly, and although I haven't checked in detail the version Stverigo reverted to does look more comprehensive, but it is a content dispute not vandalism as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia:Protection policy does state that an admin can edit a page "cautiously" in certain circumstances, one of them being to revert to a preferred version "as above". This last I take to mean in cases of vandalism, or where there is a clear point before the dispute.
Given the circumstances, I think that Steverigo has broken at least the spirit and maybe the letter of the policy as they are involved in the conflict - a request should have been made here and a note on the talk page posted to explain what they wanted and why, and get another administrator to do it.
I am therefore going to block Steverigo for 48 hours. As I only have intermittent access to my email at present and I am not going to be online this evening (Wikimania party night!) I am going to request them to make any points they want to on their talk page. Please could others watch this as well.
Separate from this, I am going to propose an amendment at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy to say that every edit to a protected page, other than adding the {{protected}} template, must be noted on the talk page. Thryduulf 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 24 hours. HGe wasn't revrting simple vandalism.Geni 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam 2.0[edit]

I received the following message on my talk page:

An admin has re-created the VFD'd article Criticism of Islam on 1st August 2005. You previously redirected it and protected the redirect to support the result of the VFD. Could you please repeat this? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to investigate, but there has been so much activity in the past few days, plus the message here earlier in the week, that I am unable to determine exactly what the existing content is. Could other admins look into this and offer input into the right way to proceed? I don't know enough about the existing activities to understand what I would be getting in the middle of, and I certainly don't want to act on this without getting the advice of others. Is anybody familiar enough with this to be able to decipher it? -- Essjay · Talk *** 16:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor recreated the article, and there has been a lot of bluster about how it's different from the one that was deleted, and people who oppose it are just apologists for Islam, and more of the same sort of Islamophobic nonsense that's been on the increase in Wikipedia lately. I've speedily deleted the article as an illicit, unilateral recreation of a properly VfD-deleted article, and recommended that someone take it to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if they want it back. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that I misread the History; it appears that the article was resuscitated by dab (see below). If so, my apologies to Ed Poor on that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's just been re-created a 3rd time at Opposition to Islam (note the edit summary forthis edit that makes it clear that this is re-creation) !!!! ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What a mess. I had a look and thought it was a recreation, but got confused by the move; a deeper look on the undelete logs revealed the real VfD'ed version, which is substantially different from the current one. I reversed my own deletion, and advise sending it to VfD again, as some of the objections on the original VfD do not apply to the current version of the article, and other objections may or may not apply. --cesarb 21:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Small note: I didn't undelete two of the pages I deleted, since both were old broken redirects which happened to get unbroken by the creation of a new version of the article, and no other article points to them. --cesarb 21:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

what absolute twaddle! -Ril-'s complaint is about as good-faith as his "sneaky little bastard" one above. This isn't a 'mess' at all, nobody has recreated any content, and if Ril has indeed an Rfc coming his way, I will be glad to add this silly campaign to the list of grievances. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Talk:Opposition_to_Islam for what was going on. Ed Poor had no hand in this at all, this is an entirely valid article I have created at Opposition to Islam, and for which there was consensus to move it to Criticism of Islam, that's all. dab () 21:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that -Ril- is, as usual, acting in bad faith. However:
  1. I also believe that the VfD vote for delete wasn't merely for the content, but for an article with that title (this has come up and been extensively discussed before); mere disagreement over content isn't good grounds for deletion, and one can vote for "merge & redirect".
  2. Significantly new content under a new title, on the other hand (as with Opposition to Islam) is perfectly OK. If -Ril- wants to propose it for VfD, he can (I, for one, will vite for keep, incidentally).
  3. It's clear that dab is completely innocent of any deliberate ill-intention in all this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, the vfd process is broken. In a perfect world, the vfd result would mean that there should never, ever be an article with the title Criticism of Islam on Wikipedia, even if it was a brilliantly academic piece. That's of course not what the vfd was about in this case. People voted to have the awful writeup deleted that happened to be under that title, at that time. Clearly, if there can be an Opposition to Mormonism, there can also be an Opposition to Islam article. Opposition is stronger than Criticism, so logically if there can be an article on 'Opposition', there can also be an article about 'Criticism' (since any opposition presupposes criticism, one should think). In fact, pro-Islamic and anti-Islamic editors have agreed that 'Criticism' is the more fitting title in this case. The only person turning this into a 'case' is Ril, apparently a troll with too much time on his hands. I may have been over-bold in unilaterally making the blank-protected page into a redirect (although I do not think I was). If that action was inappropriate, the move should be reverted. That is different from deleting the article, which is out of the question, much more speedy-deleting it. dab () 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, in a perfect world, once an article had been deleted after a VfD, another article wouldn't be allowed with that name until a process of discussion had taken place. The people involved in the discussion would sensibly and maturely decide whether the new article was just an attempt to get round the VfD or a genuinely new article which wasn't foreseen by the VfD. In this case, I'm sure that they'd decide that the article was fine. But I don't think that that decision should be taken by dab or me alone. That's all I'm saying here.

If other admins disagree with me, then I'll apologise — but I was acting in good faith, in accordance with policy as I understood it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

that's right, no harm was done, and admit that I may have done better by taking the time to put a note on vfu. I thought the announcement on the article's talk page was sufficient, but I recognize that this was incorrect by the letter of policy. The right reaction to this (by people perceiving my move as a blunder and wishing to correct it) would still have been to move the article back to where it came from rather than deleting it. As I said, no harm was done, there are certainly no hard feelings on my side, and I apologize if my reaction yesterday seemed hysterical. dab () 18:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Obsession[edit]

Moved to WP:AN/I. -Splash 22:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Second Crusade hot link leads to illustration of female genitalia[edit]

I have wikipedia main page as my start-up display. At 0840 PT this date I clicked on hot link of lead article only to reach the above.

Yes, there was vandalism on Second Crusade earlier today, but it was fixed very fast, so probably you get an outdated version of that article. Try to clear your cache. BTW: it was a picture of an anus, not necessarily female :-) andy
That's what I thought, and I was trying to think up a clever, funny remark — but then I found that there had been multiple cases of vandalism, and one included a (clearly itemised and labelled) photo of female genitalia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
There was also a string of penis-picture insertions over the featured picture on the main page last night. The IRC channel caught it pretty quick, and the offending IPs were blocked. A good reminder to keep everything that shows up on the main page (including templates, which is what was attacked with the featured pic) locked at all times. -- Essjay · Talk *** 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Template[edit]

Oleg Alexandrov has proposed a trimming down of the current "welcome" template. I felt like there should be more community input so that consensus can be reached, so I recommended that he create a proposed version page, which he did at Template:Welcome/Proposed version 1. We are seeking the opinions of the community. Please leave your input regarding the trimmed down template at the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation problem[edit]

The following is a copy of an entry I have made on the votes for deletion page which user:Fire Star suggested I should refer here.

The VfD entry has since been removed, being obviously made in error. JRM · Talk 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It was a well-meaning attempt to get a problem resolved, and it led to the relisting here. If I had not done it perhaps no-one else would have for years. If it will help "Chi-Chi" can be dropped. It is only a nickname, so it is not an essential part of the article title, in fact it might be more appropriate to exclude it on style grounds in any case. Osomec 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but it wouldn't help. In fact, I believe nothing either you or we can do will help; only someone with direct access to the database will be able to fix it. Next time, you might want to bring such things up on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --cesarb 02:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Juan "Chi-Chi" Rodríguez[edit]

I don't actually want this article about a great golfer deleted, but I don't know how else to deal with the technical problem that has been around for at least 8 months. It is correctly categorised to category:Puerto Rican golfers, but it also appears in the main category:Golfers in a bizarre form. There is a 10 February comment about this on Category talk:Golfers, but nothing has been done. It is hardly a controversial topic, so I don't think it is vital to preserve the history. Therefore I suggest deletion of all variants followed by recreation of one version, unless someone has a better idea. I have made a copy of the text. Osomec 21:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting and recreating didn't fix it. Thue | talk 22:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The article in the category is actually the redirect Juan "Chi-Chi" Rodriguez (note the normal "i"). That one should not be in the category either, and deleting it has no effect. Thue | talk 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing only a developer can diagnose what went wrong, and fix it. JRM · Talk 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my, another of these pages with % escapes on the name. The two "immortal" pages which plagued Category:Stub for a long time were also that way. When I asked Brion to take a look, he moved them to another name, where I could delete both (that was just after the 1.5 upgrade).
From what I could understand, it's a real page (probably some weird copy of the "normal" page), which somehow got a strange name, and Brion renamed it directly on the database. So, unless somehow we can trick the software into getting the "broken" page, we have to ask a developer.
--cesarb 23:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't get it to do it; when I ask for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_%2522Chi-Chi%2522_Rodriguez?redirect=no (which seems to be the troublesome page) it seems to double-unescape the URL and give me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_%22Chi-Chi%22_Rodriguez?redirect=no, the actual, unbroken redirect. The first bug is that it creates broken pages like that in the first place. The second is that it indeed double-unescapes any URL you feed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2540 would technically be the URL to an article named "%40", but it gives you @ instead. By contrast, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25GG works since %GG is not a valid escape sequence. Percent signs are not listed as illegal at m:Help:Page name, but you still can't include "%XY" in an article name if X and Y are hexadecimal digits. Note that trying to triple-unescape (http://en.wikipedia.org/%252540 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_%252522Chi-Chi%252522_Rodriguez) will get you a "Bad title" error. This is all no great loss, but it's not consistent. JRM · Talk 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I just documented it on the page linked to by Template:wrongtitle, which is where I expect most people to look for it. --cesarb 00:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Movepage/Juan_%2522Chi-Chi%2522_Rodriguez, no luck. Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Urgent help needed gathering evidence of vandalism[edit]

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:


I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

I need all your help! Please use the format:

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was generally reckoned that the source of the vandalism from at least most of those IP addresses was that they were a round-robin proxy server for a school or schools. So I'm not sure what exactly Ozemail can do about it, compared to the situation where one of their customers was vandalising Wikipedia. I mean, I don't think they're going to cut off a school's internet connection because some students were abusing it to write nonsense in Wikipedia articles, are they? —Stormie *** 05:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
They would have records of who used the ip address and when and could alert them of the problem. If nothing is done within a month, I would strongly advise the MediaWiki board to make a ruling that this subnet be blocked due to the amount of vandalism that is occuring. I might take it to arbcom. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(You mean Wikimedia...? Dmcdevit·t *** 06:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
Gah! You know, I've been calling them that incorrectly for quite some time now :( Yeah, that is what I meant! Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I just got blocked[edit]

I rolled back Vietnam War because User:Stevertigo reverted while it was locked. I sent him a quick note that it was poor form to do this. Then he blocked me!

This does appear to be an abuse of Admin priviledges. I am formally asking for him to be desysopped... however if this is not the correct way of going about it just let me know. Please also note he has been edit warring on Vietnam War.

Here is the entry in the block log: 12:59, 8 August 2005, Stevertigo blocked Ta bu shi da yu (expires 14:59, 8 August 2005) (contribs) (unblock) ( 1. Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice.)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I am also noting this on WP:AN, WP:AN/I, User talk:Angela and User talk:Jimbo Wales. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Stevertigo should definitely not have rolled the page back after it was locked; Ta bu shi da yu does not appear to have edited the article before, reverting that seems to be righting a wrong, and User:Stevertigo in particular seems the wrong person to be blocking for this. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The discussion is going on at WP:AN/I (and I think it's more appropriate there than here). Better add new comments there. --cesarb 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite has initiated a RfAr: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Stevertigo -- Curps 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration decision reached[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 case. →Raul654 *** 06:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A)What will be the duration of these penalties? It's not specified.
B)Admins have no technical ability to ban someone from a specific page. Yet remedy 5 says they are empowered to do this. Everyking 11:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Re B: right below in the "Enforcement" section, it says, under "enforcing bans":
Should Cantus edit any article from which he is banned he may be banned from Wikipedia for a short period, up to a week for repeat offenses.
I'm guessing this serves as a definition, since "banning from Wikipedia" is a technical ability. It is a bit sloppy to use a term before defining it, of course. JRM · Talk 11:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, then I guess I see how it'll work, to ban you'll add an article to a list of banned articles. Everyking 11:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked the enformcenet measure in question to fix the block/ban terminology problem. →Raul654 *** 16:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A tale of two wikis[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A tale of two wikis.

I thought this up while reading a recent RfC. I think it expresses a difference of attitude well. It may also be a simple small/large dichotomy. I'm not a sociologist or a psychologist, and maybe someone else has said it better before. I still wanted to share it with the rest of you. The exposition is intended to be neutral; I'm not trying to imply one is right and the other is wrong—as presented I'm pretty sure they're both wrong when consistently applied, for different reasons.

On second thought, moving this to the Village Pump. AN is supposed to be a noticeboard, not a place for brain dumps. JRM · Talk 11:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Imposter[edit]

Can an admin review the incident at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Imposter? There, I confirmed that a person editing from the IP address was indeed the "real" Rajan R after sending him an email through his blog. Thus, I must conclude that User:Rajanr is impostering the real Rajan R. I have promised the person Rajan R. a ban on User:Rajanr. I feel that a 48 hour ban at first is appropriate, to give him time to respond, and because the user has not, in essence, violated any Wikipedia policy. After that, then possible an indefinite ban? I request that an admin first review the discussion, and then if s/he concurs with my judgement, block User:Rajanr for 48 hours. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That looks reasonable. Since the user in question has apparently misrepresented himself as another individual (even being so bold as to link to the 'real' Rajanr's blog!), the block is legit.
Note that coincidentally sharing a screen name with some random blogger isn't sufficient to get an account blocked. There has to be–as there was in this case–a deliberate attempt to impersonate. We don't want to start wars over whether John Smith or Joe Smith gets to be User:Jsmith, for instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind blocking him for 48 hours, then? My RfA doesn't end until 2 hours later... (sigh). Thanks! Also, do you think adding a "sockpuppet" tag, but changing it to "imposter", would be appropriate for User:Rajanr's page? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I have imposed a 48-hour block on User:Rajanr, and invited him to comment on his User talk page. If any admins think I've overstepped my bounds or misinterpreted the situation, they may lift the block at their discretion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I have put up a tag saying that he may be an imposter (the tag is derived from the sockpuppet tag). If anyone feels that that is not appropriate, please go ahead and remove it. However, I beleive that the account is not the "real" Rajan R; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Imposter. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Friendly reminder[edit]

Just a friendly reminder to all admins who do speedy deletions: When you view the article, please pay extra attention to whether there is a VfD notice on the page. A lot of VfD entries are being validly speedied (which is great, because it reduces the VfD load), but the Vfd pages aren't being closed. (The archive tags need to be inserted so they will show up on the subpage.) I'm grateful for the opportunity to artificially inflate my edits by closing these out, but it would be simpler if the deleting admin would make a special effort to close the VfD if they speedy a page with a VfD notice. Thanks all! -- Essjay · Talk *** 07:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Dmcdevit·t *** 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to close vfds? I've never closed one. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a guide somewhere but if it's just the discussion you want to close, at the top of the page type {{subst:vt}} followed by the decision and then sign with four tildes, then at the bottom of the page type {{subst:vb}}. Be sure not to confuse vt and vb, they stand for "vfd top" and "vfd bottom" but are just easier to type. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The guide is at Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you close a discussion with a delete decision, be sure to check "what links here" before you delete the article, and check out the links. You might decide to remove the mention of the deleted article entirely from other articles, just de-link it, or leave it as a redlink; it's a judgement call. Joyous (talk) *** 00:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, in playing with my monobook.js, I've discovered that some users have programmed tabs that make the process easier. I haven't tried using them yet, but you might consider asking User:ABCD how that works. -- Essjay · Talk *** 02:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ozemail network evidence building update[edit]

Just wanted to let people know that we are rapidly gaining evidence of misbehaviour coming from the Ozemail network - see User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail. We still need more help, however! I'd like to document vandalism as far back as we can go... but I can't do it alone. If Everyone could help by picking an IP address and check the contribs, then add the next 50 or so I think it would be sorted in next to no time! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Catholic Criminals[edit]

I almost listed this for VfD, but thought I would get some further input from other users. To me, this article is an unfortuante article which could lead to a great deal of tit-for-tat articles about Protestant criminals, atheist criminals, Muslim criminals, etc., and I don't see how the article is useful. I will wait to hear other opinions before VfDing it. Zoe *** 23:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems to have parallels; see for example: List of Jews#Crime. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Trying defining someone stricly by their faith... 'orrible. Send to VfD, lest we get a list of homosexual criminals. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't like it either. You know, the ironic thing is that list of Jews is already on VfD too, so not much of a precedent :). Also, even if is wanted, does this accomplish anything that a category can't? Dmcdevit·t *** 00:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Any single List of [insert your favorite religion/sexual orientation/political party here] is relatively harmless. However, the information, unless the listing criterion is tied to the individuals listed in some substantive way, just doesn't belong in any encyclopedia. Information about any individual's religion, politics, etc. isn't encyclopedic, unless that information is part of what makes that person notable, a la Jerry Falwell and the like. It just doesn't matter that, for example, Cordwainer Smith was a non-observant Anglican, because it doesn't say anything about the man. And the same is true of almost everyone on every List of X here, where X is any label by which people have conventionally divided into "us" and "them". So I would say go ahead and list it, along with all the other religious List of articles. Ken talk|contribs *** 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Get rid of it please. As Kenwarren says. Unless there is an actual relation to their religion and their crime (which is exceedingly rare) there's no point in the list. Its existence implies that any criminal baptised in the correct kind of church would be listed there. That's not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< *** 08:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

With due respect to Zoe, I've heard enough opinions on this page. VfD'ing this now to get the rest of the opinions there. JRM · Talk 09:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism[edit]

Someone has "added" "eating latex usually in the form of condoms" to the five precepts on this page. Cannot find revert page, edit page does not show vandalism. Thanks for your attention in this matter.

The vandalism has been reverted, what probably happened was the page was probably reverted but you were seeing a cached page when you viewed the page itself. The reason for the difference is that the article can be cached but the edit page is pulled up from the server each time you click the edit this page link. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- *** 02:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To notify or not[edit]

Up until lately, I've had a policy of trying to warn/notify vandals and (especially) near-vandals rather than either ignore them or use administrative means to address the problem. Increasingly -- or at least seemingly increasingly -- what I get for my trouble is abuse. I'd be interested in hearing how other admins approach things like this: edit I consider just short of vandalism, my remark, to which he responded (a) with something about Willmcw, who I've never heard of and (b) an unpleasant note on my talk page. Please understand, I'm not writing here to complain about this particular user, this is not an "incident report", I'm asking in general if people think it's better with stuff like this just to revert and not drop the person a note, or if they think his edits with frivolous section titles were fine, and I should have left them alone, or whatever else... -- Jmabel | Talk *** 06:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between warning a one-shot anonymous moron who inserts "PENIS" in an article and an editor who goes around making borderline edits, ticking off people, and attracting a host of others with vested interests in one thing or another in the process (and who is moreover happy to indulge them).
What you did was fine, but you could have done without dropping the v-word. Calling someone's edits vandalism (or "perilously close" to it), even if it's dead on the mark, will almost never get you an insightful or friendly response, so don't expect one. "You are wasting people's time when you do things like this: I don't like being left to clean up after you." We can sympathize, but you shouldn't be surprised when this gets you a hostile and thorougly unproductive response.
If you see a vandal, revert. Do you then also notify? It depends. For the "PENIS" variety, it's optional. Many admins don't feel like spending the time, others dutifully insert {{test}} or other boilerplate in the hope that the vandal is a newbie who can get a clue. Recently I came across an IP who immediately started off inserting penis images in templates—this is quite obviously not a newbie, so I blocked the address without further ado. Even then it would probably have been better of me to put the blocked notice on the talk page, if only to stop others from wasting their time.
However, if you're reverting any edit from a registered account with a non-empty talk page, then you at least know this editor has been hanging around for a longer time. Not saying anything when reverting or using rollback should be reserved for absolutely clear-cut cases of vandalism, and even then you should at least ask what the hell is going on (paraphrased).
If you see someone doing something dubious or harmful, it is absolutely a good idea to inform them in addition to reverting. You should be prepared for any response, though. In the context of your remark (so it's not an incident report, whatever :-) I'd say you got the sort of response that could be expected. JRM · Talk 08:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I always like to drop in the {{test}} message so that if they engage in further vandalism and another admin goes to do the same, they'll see that they've already been warned. And also, of course, if I go to notify and see previous ones, I'm vastly more likely to wield the ban-stick. —Stormie *** 09:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I always try to add the {{test}} message for anyone that I revert for the reasons that Stormie mentioned, and because a surprising number of people stop after a couple of warnings. I think they get taken a bit aback that a real person is essentially saying "hey you: quit that!". Joyous (talk) *** 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
When I am using the test templates for anonymous newbie vandals, I usually sign with ~~~~~ so there's a date stamp to help other Admins figure out the history but I am not obviously identified. This tends to weed out the clueless reprisals. I only do it in cases where the vandalism is obvious and it really doesn't matter who does the warning because anyone could and would have. And of course I'm still identified in the history. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to say the very same thing; Stormie edit conflicted me. The test templates are always a good idea for vandalism cases, as are notes in general. While they may not get the editor to stop, it will certainly get them blocked faster. If I see a page full of warnings, I feel comfortable blocking. If I see an empty page, I feel the user should be warned rather than blocked, unless they are doing something particularly nasty. In most cases, warnings serve as a courtesy to others more than a courtesy to the user, as it makes our job much easier when we have to decide to hit the block button. -- Essjay · Talk *** 09:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that the use of the phrase about "perilously close to vandalism" was a bad choice (though I still believe it was true). And I think in the future when I encounter this sort of thing, I'll usually just make an edit summary, not specifically leave a message on the user talk page. In this case, all it seems to have done is bring the person back promptly to re-assert most of his version, frivolous subheads and all. I'll be damned if I'm getting in an edit war over this, but I think the result is detrimental to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk *** 16:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A policy note concerning boldness[edit]

I can't decide where it is best to put this, so I'm putting it here, and if you think it must be moved, please do so. Tonight I made an error in judgment in refusing to promote Lucky 6.9 to admin (wiser heads soon prevailed and the promotion has occurred). I made this error by acting too hastily, and not considering fully all of the possibilities and elements involved in the decision. Afterwards, I reflected that "be bold" is clearly a poor guideline....I couldn't figure out why this principle is a foundation of Wikipedia when it has lead to many bad decisions here (and is seemingly increasingly invoked in defense of poor, hasty decision-making).

So I read the page and realized that this principle is used in the wrong context half the time, and I think admins should all remember it. The policy page is Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Updating pages, mind you...not "in making administrative decisions". I imagine some of you will disagree with me, but I think the policy is written this way for a reason. In pursuit of accuracy, in a search for the right phrasing or article flow, in an attempt to add a cog to the great machine of Wikipedia, boldness is a virtue. Policy is silent, however, on the virtue of boldness when making decisions on deletion, blocks, protection, promotion of admins, etc. I think it is silent for a very good reason. I'm not pushing this on anyone else, but I know I personally will adopt Wikipedia:Be circumspect and thorough in acting as an administrator from now on, and I encourage others to join me. :-) My apologies once again to Lucky and the community for my initial poor judgment. Jwrosenzweig 07:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I half way agree with you. Certainly we shouldn't hand out blocks with the same forethought with which we correct typos. However, the purpose of that policy, to some extent, is that this is a wiki, and as such it's perfectly fine to learn by mistakes, since it's all reversible. In my view, the same basically holds true for admins (and bureaucrats). It's almost all reversible, and admin mistakes are even easier to spot and correct. Go easy on yourself, I doubt anyone faults you for what you did. Dmcdevit·t *** 08:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I actually think "be bold" is a really stupid idea all around. Good idea for a wiki getting off the ground, bad idea for an established one. But yeah, it definitely leads to trouble when applied to administrative decisions. Everyking 08:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Astute point, it's a different place now. Others may disagree, but I think we can all agree its not good for admin actions. Has this gotten somewhere in the admin guidelines yet? - Taxman Talk *** 18:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Admins wouldn't be elected if they didn't have common sense, and are expected to use it. As such, they can be bold if they know what they're doing, and we have enough community and mechanisms to call them back if they're going to far (such as the three recent RFCs on admin actions). Usually they come to realize they were wrong and apologize, as JWR just did, and I think that's good behavior. You can make mistakes as long as they are undone and you learn from them. Radiant_>|< *** 08:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I thank you, Radiant, and agree with you in part. I just think that the tendency seems to be headed towards confusing "common sense" with "decisive action", and I think the two are often not the same thing. Jwrosenzweig 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Martin Harper was the first one to propose the alternative slogan, "Be bold in updating pages; be timid in using administrative features" or something to that effect, about two years ago. Nearly all actions are themselves reversible, the trouble of course is that the social effects are not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Nearly all actions are themselves reversible..." ... Fortunately. I made an ill-considered "bold" move myself earlier this evening, which, fortunately, was easily enough reversed once its ill-consideration had been brought to my attention. :-) I don't think being bold is bad per se, sometimes, as it happens, boldness ends up with unforeseen consequences, all of which, happily, as far as I'm aware, can relatively easily be undone. whew! :-) Tomer TALK *** 08:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, Lucky 6.9 has already begun blocking IPs with no warning. Being a little too bold there, I feel. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon talk pages[edit]

Someone proposed an amendment for the text on IP address talk pages. See Wikipedia:Talk page/Anonymous talk pages proposal. Since there were no objections, maybe someone should implement it? Radiant_>|< *** 13:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • First, I think we should decide what "X days" is on that message before we implement it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I propose 'fourteen' (two weeks). Any objections? Radiant_>|< *** 08:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo RfAr[edit]

I have requested arbitration against Stevertigo for his abuse of administrative powers. As this concerns admins, I felt it was useful to post notice here. Please add any comments that you believe are appropriate. For more detail on this case, you should review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo. Carbonite | Talk 13:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose[edit]

I was asked to take a look at this page by User:Steve espinola. There was a nasty dispute going on, with multiple reverts, accusations of inserting POV, and (I believe) violations of WP:3RR. Instead of blocking anyone, I protected the page and encourage them to solve out their differences in the talk page. In addition, I also suggested that they take it to WP:RfC to gain input from the community. However, overnight the dispute seemed to blossom- User:Sojambi Pinola left a note on my talk page, claiming to be the "real" Steve Espinola. User:Steve espinola vehemently denied that charge, and accused User:Willmcw of violating policy. (see my talk page, and the involved parties' respective talk pages) I'm asking two questions here- 1) did I do the right thing by protecting the page, and 2) can more admins review the case and try to help them out? I'm sure a few fresh voices could help them resolve their conflict- as for me, I'm kind of tired of their dispute... :-) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating a new article that does not appear in Special:Newpages[edit]

Special:Newpages is closely monitored by the Wikipedia community to ensure that newly-created articles are encyclopedic. However, it is very easy to bypass this. See a brief description at Village pump (technical).

Can someone check if this is a known bug at Bugzilla, and if not, please report it. (Unfortunately, I don't use Bugzilla because it requires registration and requires an e-mail address to register and I don't use e-mail) -- Curps 22:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't they show up in Recent Changes? Zoe *** 21:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"indefinite" IP blocks considered harmful[edit]

Folks, on reviewing the block log I notice a surprising number of "indefinite" blocks on IP addresses. I'm not worried about blocked proxies (which have the proper blockproxy template on them) or the ongoing NSW school proxy issue. But I am worried about inappropriately long blocks which don't seem to serve any rational purpose.

I looked at all the indefinite IP blocks placed this month - the ones which I really can't understand are listed below:

  • 21:23, August 10, 2005, Kbdank71 blocked 203.162.3.78 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (boothy443 avoiding block)
2 recent problem edits
  • 21:06, August 10, 2005, Jayjg blocked 64.1.162.26 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (Historyisapov disruptive sock/role account evading block)
Problem edits dating from August 6, 2005.
  • 00:50, August 10, 2005, Jtdirl blocked 63.19.206.32 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (repeat vandal, already blocked under other IPs)
Two problem edits, both on August 10th 2005.
  • 16:22, August 7, 2005, Jtdirl blocked 67.172.31.19 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (recurring, long blocked vandal's latest identity.)
Two problem edits.
  • 20:50, August 3, 2005, Jayjg blocked 69.209.210.145 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (disruptive editor using multiple IPs)
Problem edits on August 3rd 2005.
  • 14:30, August 3, 2005, Jayjg blocked 69.222.254.7 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (abusive editor - has continued this pattern under multiple IPs for months)
Problem edits on August 3rd (21 edits total)

I appreciate vandals, socks, trolls, and wackos are a problem, and I have no problem whatever with admins blocking them. In cases where an IP has a history of problem edits, I don't have any problem with long (weeks or even months) blocks. I appreciate that some users can change IPs easily, and I don't have any objection to appropriately applied rangeblocks. I'm not questioning the rationales of any of these blocks; I trust you guys. I don't mind at all if the people who were the intended targets of these blocks can never edit wikipedia again, and suffer horrid bowel spasms if they even think about Wikipedia. I'm only concerned about legitimate users (ongoing and particularly future) who may be affected by these blocks.

All of these blocks seem to me to be placed under a fallacious principle: we know MrBad can change IPs fairly easily, yet we permanently block IPs that we know he isn't using any more.

I just can't see the sense in this at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk *** 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Mine are all fixed. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
See also the recent blurb I posted, though it's mostly about ISP proxies. In most cases, indefinite IP blocks are indeed pointless and potentially harmful. Just don't do it; it will rarely keep the vandal out and can hit innocents. Only major rotten elements with static IP addresses should be considered for this "honor". JRM · Talk 00:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a conversation on IRC about this last night; I was trying to determine the status of an IP which was eventually determined to be a static IP. Perhaps in cases where the IP was determined to be static it would be helpful for the blocking admin to include a "static IP" note in the block summary? -- Essjay · Talk *** 02:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The big problem here is determining what is "static" or "dynamic". For example, my Comcast IP address is supposedly dynamic, but in practice, it only changes once or twice a year. --Carnildo 02:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Even "static" IPs may be re-assigned, if for example the original user changes ISP and a new user gets it. "Indefinite" blocks are a bad idea. Blocks of say 6m or a year as a maximum would be plenty. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not even that. Long-term blocking IPs (proxies excepted) is simply a very bad idea. One week tops. It might feel good to put a long period of time in the box - but potentially blocking legit users is something that should be avoided. Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You're a little new to realize how persistent some vandals can be. Long blocks (up to a year on IP's) in confirmed cases is the best practice, but avoiding them for borderline cases is best too of course. A truly legitimate user would simply request that the IP be unblocked. - Taxman Talk *** 18:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Return[edit]

User:Witkacy needs an Admin to do this: Wikipedia:Protected page for his talkpage and perhaps his user page in the future, because banned User:Zivinbudas will not stop coming back. TheUnforgiven 17:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, and the user also blocked for 24 hours. Bratschetalk 5 pillars *** 19:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Final decision reached[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle →Raul654 *** 17:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Change to favicon?[edit]

Did I miss the announcement of the change to the favicon from the Wikipedia 'W' to...uh...a blue splodge that might be a globe? I can't find it on the Village Pump anywhere, but it might have come from meta: or something. -Splash 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I found out that it was an accidental thing and has been fixed. -Splash 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What to do with open proxies without solid proof[edit]

What should be done with an IP which:

  • Resolves to a hostname that can be found on google to belong to a shared web hosting
  • When accessed with a normal web browser, returns a cPanel page, which also shows it belongs to a shared web hosting
  • Has only ever edited a single article, known to be the focus of a user blocked for malicious editing and 3RR block violations
  • Its edits to said article have the same POV as the user cited above
  • When said user has used at least ten different open proxies in the last couple of days, all being of the "CGI proxy" variety (while ordinary proxies can be uncovered simply by telnetting to the right port, with "CGI proxies" you have to go to a URL; for instance, Anonymizer)
  • I cannot find definite proof is really an open proxy (like an open proxy interface on some site on that IP address, or an open proxy interface which uses that IP to access external sites, or something like that)

I'm in doubt if all that is enough to block an IP address for being an open proxy, even if it's hard to believe a normal user (which happens to edit just like the mentioned user) would use a shared web hosting server to edit Wikipedia. --cesarb 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

nmap is your friend. →Raul654 *** 02:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
nmap wouldn't help at all. The user in question has been using CGI proxies, which all work off a normal web server. The shared web host in question has, of course, a web server. But unless I get the proxy's URL, I cannot prove it's also an open proxy. It would be possible, if I somehow managed to get a list of all the domains on the server, to look it up on google, but I believe that's not something publicly available.
In case someone else wants to check: the IP is 216.118.97.135 (talk · contribs), the user is Hogeye (talk · contribs), and the article is Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The other proxies he's been using (or at least I suppose it's him) are the ones I have been blocking in the lask couple of days. --cesarb 03:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Requesting assistance in handling disruptive behavior.[edit]

Mel Etitis and I have been facing a curious problem in Rohingya, which I describe below.

I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.

Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk · contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.

Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.

I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*, especially (212.138.47.13/14/15/16/17/18/21).

I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. The sockpuppets have gone to the length of, a) accusing me and Mel to be sockpuppets, b) accusing us of abuse of admin power (which we have NOT used at all) c) Leaving racial slurs in my talk page/Talk:Rohingya, commenting on my national origin. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved. Thanks a lot to everyone who helped. --Ragib 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)