Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive12

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

Noticeboard archives

  • Topics whose last replies where August 20, 2005 and before.
  • Obsoleted requests found during a sweep of the archives on September 6, 2005

General[edit]

New admins being over-enthusiastic with blocks[edit]

I've noticed several new admins blocking IPs for a single piece of vandalism (and not giving a warning, obviously). I don't think this is a great idea - thoughts, people? (While I myself have only recently been promoted to admin here, I've been an admin for months on Wikinews so I know what's hot and what's not.) Dan100 (Talk) *** 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If there's a vandal with a recognizable pattern of edits who's jumping from IP to IP in quick succession, I think it's reasonable to block without warning when the pattern appears. Especially when the characteristic edits are highly offensive or prominently placed. Of course, it's a judgement call to say when it's "clearly" the same vandal on a fresh IP. FreplySpang (talk) *** 21:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
For the sakes of my own memory, I often create redirects between such ips. El_C 02:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: I've just blocked Dan100 and FreplySpang for disruption to WP:AN, 6 months each. That is all. Functce,  ) 21:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Freply - Indeed. However, that really doesn't seem to be what's happening here - more a case of people not applying testn messages when a vandal strikes, but then blocking without warning, or simply blocking straight-off with no sign whatsoever of a pattern.

func - ;-) Dan100 (Talk) *** 21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping I'd be your first block, Func. ;-( SlimVirgin (talk) *** 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Slim, you are blocked where it counts...in my heart. :) (Um...did that make any sense?) Functce,  ) 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly no, it didn't. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) *** 21:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think he was saying that you're a fatty deposit, but I could be wrong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, can you give examples? I only block without warning if it's someone who vandalized George W. Bush in a heinous fashion (The note at the top of the article is considered warning enough, and no one's called me out on it). I agree that blocking IPs for single pieces of vandalism is wrong, but sometimes, as Freply said, we sometimes recognize a pattern. --Golbez *** 21:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There are certain vandals who have such obvious characteristics, like using the same image over and over again, or hitting the same (relatively obscure) article over and over again. In any case, I've blocked Golbez, er, because the sun was in my eyes. Functce,  ) 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not overly keen to list examples as I don't want to engage in finger-pointing. I'd rather we just establish whether it's a good idea or not, and hope the individuals concerned take the hint :-) PS I saw your (golbez's) GWB vandal block go through - I'm not referring to that, which was fair enough for the reasons you give. Dan100 (Talk) *** 21:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not sure that subtlety will work, if for no other reason that this is a pretty big place and your posting here may go unnoticed. If you have specific concerns and don't want to air them in this forum, you may want to contact the relevant person(s) in private. --MarkSweep 21:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think all of our administrative actions are open to review at any time. Especially if it's by constructive admin peers, and not a raving IP (for once). I, for one, would want to know if I had done anything improper. Dmcdevit·t *** 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But before I do contact anyone, can we establish whether such blocks is a good idea or not? Personally, I prefer to go through all the testn messages before I block - and far more often than not, I don't get to a test5. Dan100 (Talk) *** 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes test messages help, sometimes fast moving or extremely offensive vandals are clearly just out to vandalize, and brief blocks solve the problem better. An example of the latter would be the person who keeps replacing templates with pictures of penises. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there too - but we must be careful! I blocked an NTL IP for 15 minutes for just that kind of thing earlier, but that caught out a legit user. Oops.

But the blocks that made me start this discussion were of IPs who'd only done the usual low-level stuff - page blankings or slipping a bit of gibberish into an article. Stuff testn (usually) works on. Dan100 (Talk) *** 22:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I will say that blocking reflexively is, or is becoming, a part of the wikiculture. I don't think that's a good thing. Blocking is a useful tool in certain circumstances but can either be ineffective or actually backfire in many others. We can afford to be more cautious and thoughtful about what we do and how we do it. Everyking 02:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we don't do enough, technically, to be able to block troublemakers effectively. Something as simple as a client-side cookie for AOL users would help considerably, as would better technical measures to deal with socks. At present, a purportedly new user doing a random page blanking might be a newbie or might be someone who has blanked dozens of pages, and it's too easy to assume the latter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Oy, we should be ahead of AoL vandals, not vice versa. {{AoLoL}} :( El_C 02:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Uninvited, you have a roots of a fascinating idea there. How about whenever a person tries to access Wikipedia from a blocked IP or account we send them a cookie that identifies the block in question, and then whenever they try to access wikipedia again from the same browser we can check for the presence of said cookie and continue the block if appropriate. Some thought would have to be given to dealing with socks where one account might be blocked indefinitely and others temporarily, but I think this has the makings of a really powerful technological tool. (Of course some people will work around cookies, but every little bit helps). Dragons flight *** 03:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes I like Uninvited's idea. -- Solipsist 08:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Since many AOL members end up making edits from several different addresses the same day, I think it would be helpful in identifying edits that originate from the same source as well as with the block itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we all seem to be avoiding Dan's main question, so I will say: No as a general rule, it is better to first reach for the {{test}} warning rather than a block. In the cases of a particularly knowing vandal, it can be appropriate to skip some or all of the test steps and move on to a block more quickly. One reason for this, is that a test warning (on a non-massively shared IP) can be more effective. Many vandals are fairly young and to them it is probably a game on the level of making prank phone calls. Just letting them know that their actions are being watched is frequently enough to get them to stop. In fact to force the message home, I sometimes prefix a subst of a test template with a phrase along the lines of 'Your edits to xyzw have been reverted...'. Which is to say - yes I know what you did, whilst having the benefit of reducing confusion if another user on the same IP picks up the message.

The trouble with a block is that it is more impersonal, so the vandal is less likely to feel embarrassed. -- Solipsist 08:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

One problem that I've often found is that editors reverting vandalism – especially petty vandalism, but sometimes more serious stuff – don't always bother to add a test warning (I don't myself; it can vastly increase the time taken, and there's a lot of vandalism to deal with). When I check the contributions list of a vandal and find a long history of more serious vandalism, I might well block even though no warning has been give. If it's all reasonably petty, I'll give a warning, but usually go straight to "test3" (or, in severe cases, "test4"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. But I'd like to emphasize I think it is almost always better to use the earliest appropriate test message, and then block on repeated behavior. The only time it is appropriate to block right away is in the case of blatant repeated vandalism, where it is obvious the user knows they are violating the rules. The best way to do that though is to leave the test messages first. In review of IP's I leave test messages for, the overwhelming majority, even for IP's that have made a number of vandalisms is that they don't repeat after the warning. If they do, that's a clear case to block them, so that's easy. But leaving the test message gives a chance to not push away a potential good user. - Taxman Talk *** 18:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem cases. →Raul654 *** 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am long past the point where a decision like the one against Skyring would surprise me in the least. In fact it'd surprise me if the decision had contained a hint of justice. Anyway, I think Skyring deserves a round of applause from the community for the good work he did here, and continued to do even under extreme pressure. Everyking 02:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I am long past the point where such a response from Ek can surprise me in the least. I suspect that he (yet again) failed to study the pertinent material prior to arriving to conclusions and issuing proclamtions. What can you do? File:Meh.gif El_C 02:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
So the recent ArbCom settlement means that Everyking stops whining about adminstrator Snowspinner, but instead whines about adminstrators in general? Big improvement. Maybe I should break out the beer glasses again. --Calton | Talk *** 02:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Weren't you supposed to be admonished about that? Everyking 02:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Not here on Planet Earth. Did you have an alternate universe in mind? --Calton | Talk *** 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the operative word for that "censuring"? JRM · Talk 03:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Calton, please leave the glasses in the cupboard. One editor stretching the bounds of Wikipedia:Civility doesn't mean that all of us should. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Everyking, Skyring did do some good work. Unfortunately, he abandoned that and chose to pursue a path of argument ad nauseam, harrassment of other editors, and abusive sockpuppetry.
Nevertheless, the resolution imposed by the ArbCom was certainly hefty, and that type of decision should taken with the greatest care and deliberation. In the interest of fairness, if they have erred, I am sure that they would be willing to review their decision. I might suggest preparing a brief explanation (500 words should more than suffice) of why the resolution should be modified–and how–and put it up at RFC. Strong community support for a rehearing would compel either the ArbCom or Jimbo to act.
If you're not prepared to do anything beyond making Monday-morning quarterback calls here, please refrain. Calton is a recovering alcoholic, and I'm trying to steer him away from temptation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Remarks stricken by me; they were in poor taste and overextended Calton's drinking game allusions. I will remove them entirely if Calton requests it, or leave them stricken so my gaffe remains plain to see.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
And you're a slanderous, interfering, tone-deaf busybody who should stick his nose elsewhere. Everyking is a big boy, and he should damn well be willing to taste his own medicine. --Calton | Talk *** 06:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(And User:Gadfium removes my response above but leaves TenOfAllTrades original sleazy comment. Very evenhanded application of pseudo-policy there. --Calton | Talk *** 06:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... the one who makes the personal attack criticizes the other's grasp of policy. Dmcdevit·t *** 06:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gadfium was commendably trying to quell an argument; he wasn't trying to silence you, Calton. Calton voluntarily agreed to stop making drinking game references, and he has done so admirably. TenofAllTrades was giving Everyking some sage advice. Everyking was doing the same behavior that he was warned about previously, which he was advised would lead to another arbcom case (EK - consider this a less-than-subtle reminder). Enough bickering, everyone. I'm sure we can all find more productive things to do. →Raul654 *** 07:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What's this diplomacy where everybody gets the diplomatic treatment at my expense? Calton has done so admirably? Right here he threatened to start up again! That's doing so grudgingly. And sage advice? Raul's comment is nothing but a threat, and a blatant one at that. Everyking 09:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
At your expense? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The same language used to praise these other editors condemns me. "Has done so admirably". "Sage advice". Everyking 09:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ten of all trades' advice about starting a rfc certainly was sage. I strongly endorse it. I agree that Carlton shouldn't have talked about getting out the drinking glasses again, and that Raul654 was being very diplomatic because he was trying to quell an argument. Tying to stop an argument from escalating is in itself an admirable thing to do don't you think? I don't think Raul654 can threaten you. He is an arbitrator. Arbitrators can only look into cases brought before them. They can't instigate them themselves, so you have nothing to fear from Mark. Never the less he could have been more diplomatic with you I suppose. Let me try. Please Everyking, we really do not want to see you up before us again. So please stop making swipes at others. If you have consructive critisism by all means make it, but stop the type of comments above which only serve to lower people's opinion of you. Constructive critisim looks like this - "The AC decision was wrong because blah blah blah. A better decision would have been blah blah blah" Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be more admirable if he wasn't heaping abuse on me in the process. And this stuff about an ArbCom member being unable to threaten is complete silliness. Anyway, let's see: I made a "swipe" at the ArbCom, not at a particular editor, so is the ArbCom going to punish me for criticizing them for being counter-productively harsh? How ironic would that be? Everyking 10:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
If you were truly critisizing rather than just making swipes no one would mind, no one would "threaten" and no one would offer the "sage advise" that you appear to object to. Are you aware that most people seem to think that you don't bother to even look into the cases that you swipe at on this page? Are you aware that, because of how you say it, that people often ignore what you say because it's only Everyking spouting off again. Is that what you want? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
what Theresa said. dab () 12:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:小籃子[edit]

Could we require this User to come up with a User name that contains readable characters? Zoe *** 04:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they're readable to someone? I remember seeing recently a user name in another script...do we have a policy about this? When I'm at home I don't get Japanese or Chinese characters to show up properly but at the university they do. So maybe these characters also can be seen depending on what your computer can read. Everyking 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
For what it is worth they appear to be perfectly reasonably Chinese characters to me, though I have no idea what they mean. Dragons flight *** 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be impossible for another editor to type this user's name into any talk page, AN page, or whatever, unless they have a Chinese keyboard. It requires going to the user's page and copying and pasting their name. I'm sure what Everyking is referring to is one of the many odd signatures people are using, but you can scroll over their signatures and see their real names. This doesn't tell me, who doesn't have Chinese characters downloaded on my computer, anything, and what's to keep somebody else from creating another name in other non-readable characters which causes the same "???" to show up? It would be impossible to tell them apart. Zoe *** 05:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The name, "xiao lanzi" means "little basket", for what it's worth. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) *** 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
That's the big problem right there; an editor who doesn't have the appropriate character sets installed and set up might not even be able to refer to the user in question. In addition to the username spoofing issues (the Latin 'c' looks just like the Cyrillic 'c', for instance), we have just discovered another annoying side effect of Unicode usernames. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
People will find way to comunicate they always do. since I always copy the name from a persons user page when I block I don't see this makeing much difference.Geni 14:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be reasonable to disallow such usernames. Some users are active on more than one interwiki Wikipedia and naturally wish to use the same username everywhere. The Chinese Wikipedia obviously allows Chinese names, and zh:User:小籃子 seems to be an active user there, who is now also editing here. Some users have suggested implementing universal login so you'd only have to login once to be able to edit across various Wikipedias. If this ever gets implemented, users will naturally use their native username for this purpose.

This will probably not be an issue going forward. Font support on all major operating systems (Windows, Linux, Mac) is readily available. Windows XP installs fonts for pretty much all the languages out there straight out of the box (at least Win XP Professional, not sure about the home edition). We can probably expect this to be the norm going forward... disk space for storing fonts is hardly an issue anymore with the enormous hard drives we have today. -- Curps 10:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have Win XP Professional installed and no Chinese or Japanese character support. Also, I only have a 40 gig HDD :( (but the latter is beside the point) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How can I download the Chinese character set? I'm using Windows Me. Zoe *** 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you can go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ and then ask for the "Custom" (not "Express") update. Then on the left-hand side look at the optional (not critical) updates... multinational fonts should be available as updates there, if I recall. At least that's how it worked for Windows 98 some years ago. -- Curps 19:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Zoe *** 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
How perverse of them. They only let you update if you're running IE. Zoe *** 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Cool. I can read it now. Well, not read it, but it isn't just question marks. :) Zoe *** 04:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds to me like a good reason to disallow non-ASCII characters in usernames, at least on the English Wikipedia. Can anyone name any serious current editor that has a non-ASCII name? Radiant_>|< *** 00:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • But this user name isn't offensize at all.......... I can read it and stuff. Sasquatch *** 04:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The ability to use true Unicode names on en has only existed since the 1.5 upgrade a few weeks ago. Before that names were restricted to ISO 8859-1 (a version of Extended ASCII, but still twice the size of true ASCII), so no accounts using true unicode names are going to have a long history. However, there are users such as Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason who are well-established but have usernames involving characters that are not true ASCII and which are equally untypable on a standard keyboard. Keep in mind that any name with an accent mark is now Unicode and would not be typable on most US/UK keyboards. I am in agreement with Curps and Sasquatch on this one. For me, the value of allowing people exercising good faith to have a native user name trumps the concern for needing to install fonts and/or cut-and-paste the name when referencing it. Incidentally, by going to the end of the user list it is possibly to see all of the accounts that start with Unicode characters, begining with User: S²: [1]. (380,000+ accounts have been created... wow). Dragons flight *** 05:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ævar Arnfjörð is quite easy to type on a standard keyboard. If you're using Windows, just switch to the US-International kbd, and then Æ is ctl-alt-shift-Z and ö is " followed by o. Lookie that. Ah, so easy. 小籃子 is pretty easy too, you just have to go into your setup and tell it you want "asian language support" or whatever, and voilà! Tomer TALK *** 20:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you can call him Aevar Arnfjord Bjarmason. His name is actually readable, even if you don't understand the exotic characters in his name. Eugene van der Pijll 18:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Intro[edit]

Can someone please address the comment I've made at Template talk:MainPageIntro. If you are not willing to add the link, please explain why. People have repeatedly edited the page, ignoring my request completely. I feel that shows disrespect. Pages are protected to prevent vandalism, not to restrict legitimate contribution to the administrators. Superm401 | Talk *** 03:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, 8 admins have edited the actual page and Gyre has edited the talk page, which means he must have seen my comment. There are only 3 other sections on the page. Mine is at the bottom but difficult to miss. Superm401 | Talk *** 04:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I have addressed this at Template talk:MainPageIntro. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks[edit]

A new proposal has been written to allow admins to block people that make frequent personal attacks (but only if the admin is an uninvolved party). Please visit and give your comments. It is still in the discussion stage, so no voting please. Radiant_>|< *** 09:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Important copyright question[edit]

This RFC is shaping up to be a confusing legal issue. Specifically, guidance is required for material copied from another Wiki that also utilizes the GFDL. Would a copy/paste job suffice? Should author information be recorded? If so, how: on the talk page, or via Special:Export or its equivalent, or via a link to the original wiki in the article which can be construed as advertising? Legal people please advise. Radiant_>|< *** 15:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles which contain nothing but long lists of external links[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Ultimate leagues. If, as the vote now stands, this article is going to be kept, we need to change WP:NOT so as to let the world know we encourage the creation of articles which are nothing more than duplicates of Google and Yahoo! search. Zoe *** 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Agricultural Web Sites, where the vote is currently going in the opposite direction. Zoe *** 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD needs closing[edit]

Can someone please close off Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ralph Woodrow (2nd nomination)? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've closed it. I think. The instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion process don't entirely make sense, at least not to me... Dan100 (Talk) *** 10:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Should they be rewritten/clarified? What part(s) don't you understand? Radiant_>|< *** 12:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing without leaving a log[edit]

Wikipedia moderators (or admins) can unilaterally alter articles and insert text without it showing in history. Two times articles I have created/edited have been modified.

The first time it occurred was on my talk page: For the "White" article, someone put I "MINORLY" edited the white article.

The second time (sometime within the last 5 days) was in the Black People article. Someone decided to insert early on that Black people are not numerous in the Sahara desert. The sentence caught my attention, because it discussed where black people are "NOT" found. And that was out of touch with the article itself. (I believe someone in Wikipedia is afraid of supporters of Black history including the northern coast of Africa), whoever it is, is either really good or a Wikimoderator. I did not see that sentance in earlier edits, and I do not remember it being in the article early on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In this edit to your user page, you said "I minorly edit this article from time to time." Are you saying that you did not make that edit? Administrator edits are just like anyone else's—everything is stored in the article history. If some edits are not being recorded, that's a serious bug that should be fixed. (You did add a lot of material at once in that edit. I know from experience that it's easy to forget little details.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


I checked, and the Black article was edited by DanMS and i didn't realize it. So yes. But the second one, it seems a little silly for me to put "minorly" edit, but OK. I am very conscientious of the integrity of Wikipedia, and although you may disagree, I believe there is a bias-slant in racial issues that favors the White-European point of view, that makes some things unfair. But so I apologize if I have jumped the gun in accusing moderators of surreptitiously editing articles. However I will keep my eyes open.

NoPuzzleStranger a possible sock of Wik / Gzornenplatz[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#NoPuzzleStranger and User_talk:David_Gerard#Could_you_please_check_an_IP_address.3F.

Essentially:

  • "NoPuzzleStranger" turns out to be an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz
  • ArbCom says take it to WP:AN
  • David Gerard says that IPs don't tell for sure one way or another
  • NoPuzzleStranger says, "Well aren't you smart. I said before I sympathize with Gzornenplatz and tend to some of the things he tended to. There's no rule I know of that prohibits usernames which are anagrams of the names of banned users."

So here we are, at WP:AN. -- Curps 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the way forward (as set out in the Gzornenplatz/Wik sockpuppet case) is that one admin should block NoPuzzleStranger indefinitely. Then another should unblock him and there should be a blocking/unblocking war which expands to other admins. Then the ArbCom will take the case and block NoPuzzleStranger after deciding that behaviour and IPs are similar. Then Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger will start editing more frequently on a sockpuppet account, and will be caught out again after a few months, jguk 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
you forgot to mention that several debates, with varying degrees of accrimosity and density of personal attacks (and admonishments against personal attacks) are required. Somebody at the end of it all will total up all the words written and declare the total to be greater than in two good Agatha Christie novels, only to spark a further intense debate about whether using the adjective good is NPOV or not. There will also need to be an edit war over whether any of these debates and edit wars are lame or not. When the arbcom is petitioned again then there will be heated debates over which arbitrators should or should not be recused. After this the case will be rejected on the grounds that there is no clear evidence that any of the RfCs were aa serious attempt at dispute resolution and mediation was not attempted. Thryduulf 22:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget the block/unblock wars over 3RR violations during the course of those edit wars, and the possible departure–temporary or permanent–of one or more editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You still forgot that the various factions should award barnstars to the admin they agree with, and then to top it off, arbcom should reject the case and leave us where we started but with another mess to deal with. :) Dmcdevit·t *** 08:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of personal conviction I believe there should be no block, since this user is a good if occasionally difficult editor, but of course I don't expect anyone to actually heed that. And we'll go through the same thing a few months from now. I for one am glad he continues to edit in his various incarnations. Everyking 04:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm uninvolved (I've never had any interaction with Wik/Gz), and since Jimbo ordered Wik blocked indefinately for using a vandalbot, I've blocked indefinately. If blockwars are to errupt, at least I can say the first block was done in good faith, and on good advice. -- Essjay · Talk *** 04:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it's necessarily forever; it's for as long as it takes for him to resort to groveling and begging, as I understand it. Everyking 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You understand incorrectly. Asking someone to contact Jimbo to discuss his past very bad behavior is not the same as asking them to grovel. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This seems kind of like calling the glass half empty or half full. The basic nature of the situation is the same. Everyking 06:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Final decision reached[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey case. →Raul654 *** 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocked indefinitely. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That should be a year. One year is the limit for Arb cases. Everyking 03:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, if you had actually read the case, you would see the remedy is that "Mlorrey is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute with users Meelar and Firebug.", which Uninvited Company correctly took to mean indefinitely-until-Mlorrey-meets-this-demand. →Raul654 *** 04:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I actually did read the decision, my oh-so-civil arbitrator friend, but I am not aware of any precedent for indefinite bans and my understanding was that undefined lengths of time default to a year. Everyking 04:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • My understanding is that that is the case with the exception of bans for legal threats. Legal threat bans last until the legal dispute is resolved, possibly plus additional time. A permaban that is lifted when the dispute is resolved is a good approximation to this. --Carnildo 07:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • EK, I don't know why you'd suggest there is no precedent for indefinite bans. I can think of a few, off-hand (Wik for the vandalbot, Michael for general vandalism, Mr. Treason for death threats, etc.). In at least one instance (Michael), the ban has been lifted after some kind of resolution/agreement was made -- clearly indefinite doesn't have to mean "infinite". But I can't think of anything at Wikipedia that limits indefinite bans to a year. If there's a policy page that states this, I hope you'll point it out to me so that I can go protest on its talk page. :-) After all, there are some crimes (vandalbots and death threats being cases in point) bad enough that the mere passage of time is not a good enough reason to give someone back the privilege of editing this site -- some kind of restitution or apology would be necessary, at the very least, for this community to trust such a user again. Jwrosenzweig 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
            • As far as I know all the indefinite bans were imposed by Jimbo and not the ArbCom, although perhaps there is an ArbCom precedent somewhere in its history that I've forgotten. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say there's a general understanding that blocks are at a maximum of a year and if you don't specify it defaults to that. Everyking 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
              • The duration of the ban is quite clearly specified - "Mlorrey is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute" →Raul654 *** 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Please be serious, Raul. Everyking 08:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • In what way is he not being serious? The ban lasts until legal disputes are resolved. If this sets a precident then so be it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect to indefinite blocks for standing violations of policy, Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs) comes to mind. He's under an indefinite block (one not even imposed by ArbCom, if I remember correctly) for insisting that some of his contributions aren't covered under the GFDL. He's been told that he's welcome to come back as soon as he drops that insistence. In the case of Mlorrey, there is still an outstanding legal threat. As soon as Mlorrey withdraws that, he will no longer be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on legal threats; the ArbCom's time-limited resolutions would then be in force. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, what I've been saying is only referring to the ArbCom. I don't dispute for a minute that people can under some circumstances be blocked permanently. What I'm saying is that the ArbCom doesn't issue bans longer than a year. Everyking 06:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The arbcom has voluntarily refrained from issuing bans of greater than one year; there is no rule that we cannot issue longer ones. On the other hand, legal threats are a very serious issue. If dealing with them requires breaking tradition, I'm all with Theresa - so be it. →Raul654 *** 06:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, so that isn't a definite rule anymore, I'll make a mental note. But if this is the case, I think in the future if you're going to ban someone indefinitely you should say indefinitely, instead of failing to specify a length, since then people will wrongly assume it's a year. For example, I have a recent case that I previously assumed the decision for would expire in a year, but now I don't know what the length of it is. I think there's a lot of cases that could be affected by this. Everyking 06:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
            • We can't specify a length in this case obviosly. But sure, we will try not to leave lengths unspecified in the future. If there are any cases that you are unsure about you can always put in a request for clarification on WP:RFAr Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Windsor[edit]

There has been a move war or almost going on with Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. Apparently both sides are highly convinced of their respective, but opposite positions, and have only recently resorted to its Talk page to communicate their opinions. This seems a beginning of something potentially bad.... Should the article be protected against moves? 217.140.193.123 08:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems[edit]

I just want to remind admins about this page having a huge backlog. Though normally the WP:CP process is supposed to take a week, right now there are listings three times as old. Thanks. -- Paddu 10:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

DotSix and puppets[edit]

Personal request: if you block a sockpuppet account of DotSix, who previously edited from IPs only, please watch the block log after you do it and undo any IP blocks coming from the autoblocker. DotSix edits from AOL and any IP he uses will be a proxy.

These blocks will hurt innocent people, most notable of which WBardwin, who's currently harrassed by overzealous admins and the autoblocker half the time he edits (see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for the full tragedy).

I filed bugs #2879 and #3165. If you have a Bugzilla account or are willing to register one, please consider adding your vote to getting this fixed. JRM · Talk 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal that's always floating around is to allow signed-in users to edit even if their IPs have been blocked. See Bugzilla #550. Carbonite | Talk 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Boothy's talk page[edit]

Should User talk:Boothy443 - deleted on the 15th by his request - be restored for historical purposes? — Dan | Talk 18:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it has been. Yes, I do think unless a user is planning to leave Wikipedia permanently their talk page shouldn't be deleted. Even if they're leaving permanently I think it's somewhat questionable. Everyking 06:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it has not been undeleted. Boothy443 moved one of his talk page archives back over the talk page (a pretty sneaky way of making it look like it has been undeleted). Makes me wonder what it is that he's trying to hide. --cesarb 15:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty standard that everything on Wikipedia is kept in the page histories unless there's a good reason why not. Isomorphic 06:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Boothy's talk history can be found in his four archives: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Canderson7 *** 16:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Even then, there is a need for the page history (so you can know who added which comment). That's why I told Boothy443 he should move the talk page, instead of asking for it to be deleted. --cesarb 17:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
He did so in the cases of archives 2, 3, and 4. In addition Archive 2 has all of the history of Archive 1. --Canderson7 *** 17:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin-imposed perma-block same as an ArbComm one?[edit]

Suppose an admin imposes a permanent block on a user for making a direct threat of offline action (the example here should be User:Amorrow). His first sockpuppet is blocked immediately. But he continues editing under anon IPs freely. Generally speaking, when the ArbComm issues a ban, edits may be reverted on sight by any user for the duration of a ban, and this applies when a higher authority e.g. Jimbo issues the ban too.

So can the edits of perma-blocked user, so blocked by an admin, also be reverted on sight, or does that need a higher authority? -Splash 19:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Admin-imposed blocks reflect the sole judgement of the sysop, and may be reversed by another sysop. Arbcom-imposed blocks and other enforcement actions are expected to be enforced by all. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you. -Splash 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder[edit]

Just a friendly reminder to all admins- when you update WP:DYK, WP:ITN, Featured Anniversaries/holidays, or the featured article template, make sure to protect the images. In addition, make sure to unprotect the images once they are off the main page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Deletion of an article[edit]

Can an admin please delete Mahadrek ? This page was supposed to be deleted a long time ago as per the vfd.

  • Done. The reason it wasn't deleted is that the VFD debate didn't link to the article. Nonetheless, it was a copy of the Mahadreck article, and the content was fictitious. Thanks for finding it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFC[edit]

Could some other admin please delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jayjg? Its 48 hours has expired; I'd do it, but the initiator already thinks I'm a co-conspirator. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete[edit]

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Neutral_point_of_view[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the perfect place to leave this... but can someone speedy keep this article from VFD. Some noob nominated it for deletion in bad faith.Gateman1997 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Balanitis xerotica obliterans/temp[edit]

Please could someone delete this page. It was created by myself as a temporary space for rewriting the article, but is no longer required. - Jakew 10:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

FilePile VfD[edit]

Would someone please put the FilePile VfD out of its misery? The longer it stays open, the more polluted and acrimonious it becomes. (And while I voted in that VfD, this plea for attention is more because I've watched the discussion spin totally out of control in the past day or so, and hope that it can be put down soon.) Jason 04:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that it be closed without consensus, and that the issue be mediated before being relisted to avoid another trainwreck. Kelly Martin *** 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I did the deed. A look at the article history was enough to make my brain hurt. This was clearly out of control. I also blocked User:Linnwood for 24 hours for 3RR (I counted 13 in 24 hours!) and User:Xed for 72 hours (I counted 21 in 24 hours!). I also note that he is on personal attack parole per arbcom ruling, and some of the edit summaries speak for themselves. Dmcdevit·t *** 05:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Jason, for bringing this to attention here, and thanks to Dmcdevit for putting it to sleep. I and a few others are still very much interested in having the article dealt with according to proper WikiProcess, and we'd appreciate any help any of you could offer with regard to mediation or advice. Again, thank you. Adam Conover *** 06:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I haven't been following this at all, but I see at least 16 undisputed delete votes and a grand total of 3 keep votes, a clear consensus to delete. Calling off a VFD as disputed just because someone attempted to disrupt it seems to me like it might set a bad precident; that could easily encourage people who want a VFD to fail to create a bunch of socks and disrupt it themselves. Aquillion 03:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we try unprotecting IP address?[edit]

It was protected due to vandalism since August 1st - I think 16 days is plenty; let's see if the vandalism has quieted down. If not, we can reprotect it. I'll put it on my watchlist. JesseW 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Two weeks should hopefully be enough time for the vandal to have lost interest. - SimonP *** 18:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that there was some vandalism, but hopefully it will be light enough to not be an issue. JesseW 03:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Add "of the UK" to copyright templates[edit]

I propose that we add the words "of the UK" to the end of the first line of the following image copyright templates: Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright, Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright, and Template:NHSCopyright. That way it makes more sense of which country it is from, because you have no idea which country's goverment this is. I can not do this because the page is currently protected for some reason. Can an admin please help? This will make things clearer. --michael180 *** 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected them. If there was a good reason for them being protected, that should've been recorded somewhere visible (eg on the Talk page or in an edit summary).Dan100 (Talk) *** 22:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about these templates, but I believe we generally keep any copyright-related policies and possibly templates protected, because they are important legal matters and should not be changed by well-meaning people who don't know much about law (e.g. most of us) and they certainly should never be vandalized in any way. Not that anything else should, but for legal tangles it can be worse. Radiant_>|< *** 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought so too, and was about to post something to that effect, but I couldn't actually find a page where this is written down - if there is one, please tell me (I think I read about this rule on the mailing list once). At least the pages that I expected it to be on, Wikipedia:Protected_page#Legal_reasons and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, didn't mention it. And Dan100 is right to note that protections should be explained on the talk page. Maybe we should create a template that explains protections for this reason? Also, while looking around, a look at some of the other copyright tags showed that many of them are not protected. If there is indeed such a rule, we should protect them all. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm stupid:

Wikipedia:Protected page#Various template pages. But the reason should still be written down somewhere. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • {{sofixit}}? :) I'd do it myself except that I'm way overdue for falling asleep now. Radiant_>|< *** 00:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Done! Thank You for unprotecting the pages. --michael180 *** 14:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Copyright tags are also protected to prevent undue server strain when they are changed: that doesn't seem to be a problem in this case though. Physchim62 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

By the way things are heading, if this discussion is left to run the full five days, it is going to be unclosable, because it will be impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff. It has already spawned disruption such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster. It might be worthwhile treating this as a highly exceptional case and closing early, simply in order to halt the disruption. Alternatively, Ta bu shi da yu or another administrator might care to re-run a more closely monitored discussion. Uncle G 12:41:23, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that's one of the worst VFD messes I've ever seen. It googles a lot, but most of that seems to be linkspam. Speedily closing this seems like a good idea; I've looked over the history and blocked a bunch of sockpuppets (people may wonder why I bothered, but if someone creates an account in 2004 and barely uses it except for a sudden few VFD votes half a year later, I'd say that's gaming the system). Radiant_>|< *** 13:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The LJ'er is going on my list of internet idiots, and if I ever feel like losing my admin powers I will delete that article just to piss the entire list of anons off. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
even without the sockpupets it appears a pretty clear keep. The more interesting factor is what happens when we get round to deleting the images as copyvios.Geni 14:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: the copyvios: one of the images has clearly been released under the GDFL (the Sistine Chapel take-off), and its talk page documents the email chain granting license. The other one has yet to be confirmed to be under GDFL, but there's a few emails out there awaiting reply. Jason 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I was bold, and went ahead and closed the discussion. It's a keep, even if you throw out the anon and unsigned votes. I'm going to protect the page to prevent anyone from adding extra votes. Bratschetalk 5 pillars *** 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm astounded that we kept this. This is an in-joke, comedy. The whole article reads like an attempt at humor. Look at the little notepad scribbling of the monster! In any case it's obviously completely non-notable. When I see something like this kept and remember that I've written perfectly good articles that have been deleted, it makes my head spin. Everyking 10:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There's currently 71,000 hits on Google for "Flying Spaghetti Monster". While it is silly, it's not as silly as Intelligent Design, and it's a valid satire on current goings-on at the Kansas Board of Education which seems to have struck a chord with many, hence it's encyclopaedic. -- Arwel 10:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the discussion was "advertised" on a relevant LJ board - that was bound to attract as many legitimate wiki users who wanted it kept as anon sockpuppets with a bee in their bonnet. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Certain things excel at Google tests without necessarily having a whole lot of genuine notability. I figure this got passed around a whole bunch of blogs and that way it accumulated a bunch of hits. It sounds to me sort of like the invisible pink unicorn, which we also have an article on. I don't really think either one is particularly notable, although they might merit a paragraph or two each in a more general article on this kind of thing. But oh well, what's done is done. Everyking 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
FSM also got picked up by the boston sun times and another major news paper.--Tznkai 12:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)