Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Some humor[edit]

From the user talk page of Daniel Brandt:

My open letter to Jimmy Wales was deleted on my User page. Isn't this censorship? Daniel Brandt 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, because he's already received it. Tell you what, Daniel. I want to talk to you in real-time. My AIM is linuxbeak1. Go ahead, put it on your enemy page. Let's discuss this thing like civilized people and not like animals like we have been. I'm willing to discuss the problems and I want to make the article better. Go ahead, contact me. I won't bite. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
As the letter seems to be here, (a link provided through the lovely article on you, Danny), I do not see how you can seriously claim censorship, especially when you so badly demanded that the lovely article on you be deleted. I'd reckon you need to be reminded on the definition of censorship: Have you tried google? I hear its rather helpful... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, we need to maintain a healthy and loose demeanor throughout the community if we plan on having any fun. I frankly stopped caring about Brandt, now. He's just a troll, and he's actually funny. Linuxbeak | Talk 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... I know he's being kinda bad, but could we at least try and treat this guy with some respect. Our overall tone could improve greatly. I do not condone what he has done, but think people have perhaps gone over the line violating wikiquette and civility guidelines. Let's do try and not stoop to this level. Just my thoughts. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually think most of us have been (see the user talk page). You've got to admit, Jeffrey pulled a one-liner on him. Nothing says we should bash the guy into the ground, but at the same time, we don't need to pretend that we're saints. Linuxbeak | Talk 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. --Right after telling him he was blocked.

Instead, you go about whining and bitching and attacking any editor that disagrees with your views.

I was born in 1986. You were born in 1947. And you know what's sad? I've got a more realistic view of how the world works than you do.

You truely are a crackpot, and that's sad.

...afraid that you're going to reveal that you truely are just a whiny has-been that never was in the first place? I bet you anything that you will just ignore this or use this as proof of the supposed secret police on Wikipedia. Why? Can't take a dose of reality from someone that's two generations younger than you?

It is just so hostile. I know, I know, you guys tried to reason with him, but that is no excuse for resorting to taunting and personal attacks. I'm not trying to tell you to pretend to be a saint, but I do urge you to err on the side of decent human being. I know I'll probably take a lot of grief over this, but what makes you guys as Admins better than him? No one should personally attack another editor, especially an Admin. Why should you be allowed to get away with this? I don't know... I've had enough for awhile. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ehhhh... I suppose you're right ;-) make me feel bad about it... Ahn. I don't know. We have to release steam somehow, so that's how we did it. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to do it, but really... THIS should indicate to you why we're a little annoyed, eh? Linuxbeak | Talk 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
True, but guys, don't lose your head, keep it civil. That at least gives us the moral high ground. Titoxd(?!?) 21:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Alex. I have seen that cite. But bad behavior does not justify bad behavior. If it had been me, I would have wanted to punch the guy in the face probably, I just don't like to see it on the screen. I know you never meant any harm. See you around. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm, actually I sort of regret the remark that encouraged him to list me on his site. Not that I'm concerned about being on the list, it's just that some of our cheaper one-liners, although perhaps understandable, are either breaches of WP:CIVIL (which is rude) or troll-feeding (which is always counter-productive). As far as I'm concerned, from this point, the best policy is /ignore. And on that theme ..... . Doc ask? 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
He hath dubbed me Sir Juan (Rico). I live in the Bronx. See, you learn something new every day. Honestly, though, I have no idea where he got that identity. It's way off. Superm401 | Talk 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Same here. According to him my name's Craig Anderson and I live in Hialeah, FL, USA. That's news to me. Canderson7 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Your name is at least plausible, though. Maybe you also live in Florida(i.e in addition to Craig, not me, in case he gets another wrong idea), which he learned by guessing your IP from a logged off edit? Superm401 | Talk 13:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Brandt appears to have quite an active imagination. "Juan Rico" is a character from the 1959 novel, Starship Troopers; "(Thomas) Craig Anderson" is also a character from the 1970 novel, The Paper Chase. --Viriditas | Talk 13:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just saw this. I was't being uncivil by thanking him for visiting, I was thanking him for visiting. My other note was simply pointing out his hypocrisy. Sure, I could have dropped the google bit, but after he has said that wikipedia editors (and the people on his list specifically, myself included) will "chase and rape" anonymous editors, one cannot blame me there. Yes, we need to be above his smear incivility, and I was not uncivil at any point, especially considering the level of crap he has hurled at us. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While it may be understandable, there is no question that "I'd reckon you need to be reminded on the definition of censorship: Have you tried google? I hear its rather helpful..." is uncivil. The first example at WP:CIV says simply "rudeness". The problem with lowering our standards when the other guy deserves it is that "derserving it" is a judgement call. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly. WP:CI is for always, not just for people you like anyway. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and unfailing politeness even in the face of people who are purposeful vandal/trolls has its advantages too. For one it keeps clean hands and for another it either avoids escalating a situation or deflates it. I wish more people would reallize incivility ot trolls just incites the behavior. I think that is the reason I rarely get any retribution from trolls. I don't block a ton, but I've done enough to know unfailing politeness is more successful than lowering to their level by making fun of them, etc. I'd also argue it's more fun in the end. I think of it like Apu saying "Thank you come again" to someone he's just sent to jail for stealing. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this [1] morbidly interesting... Titoxd(?!?) 05:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The state of Florida has an invasion-of-privacy statute, and Wikipedia concedes that it is within the state's jurisdiction. This is not about cookies and log access, but rather about the right of a private person to be left alone. Articles on private persons could easily run afoul of this law. Where on Wikipedia is guidance offered to editors and administrators about how to comply with this law? 4.230.153.188 08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a private individual would have the guaranteed right to privacy, but a public figure does not. That is why celebrities cannot do much against hounding photographers, and magazines and such can publish info about them. So the question remains, is Daniel Brandt a public figure or a private one? The answer seems to be fairly obvious. By starting NameSpace, GoogleWatch, YahooWatch, and now WikipediaWatch (while being self-referential, stilll is notable for one of the most visited sites on the Internet), and since he has been covered in the media as a newsmaker, he has made himself a public figure. If there is an article about a private person, please feel free to point it out, and we'll see what we can do about having it removed. Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
And yet, there is no photograph of him on the web. He doesn't give speeches. He doesn't do radio or TV. Quite possibly a "private person" for legal purposes. The point is, Wikipedia has no guidelines on this -- everyone is flying by the seat of their pants on this issue.
There may be no photos of him, but I found articles about him in The Observer, The Ottawa Citizen, Sunday Times (London), Washington Internet Daily, The Christchurch Press, American Libraries, The Irish Times, Playboy, San Jose Mercury News, and many, many other reputible newspapers, magazines, and other publications. He is not a private citizen in this right. We should be considerate to his family, etc. but he is a well-known, public figure. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this public/private figure debate is a red herring. As long as an article adheres to the wikipedia core principals of No Original Research and Verifiability, these issues largely evaporate. We report what other — reliable — sources tell us. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Since all of our information should be coming from newspapers, books, etc., he can no more sue us than he can sue the Ottawa Citizen for having an article about him.--Scïmïłar parley 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the notability issue is very important. We should not put information on Wikipedia about private people. That's why Admins have the right to delete personal information, and not just hide it in the history. What makes a person a public figure? Notability. I think the two can pretty much be used interchangeably. It is an importnant issue that Wikipedia faces. A private person has the right to have his or her personal info not disseminated on WP. However, once the person gains noteriety, we have the right to have an article about him or her. But yes, WP:NOR and WP:V need to be remembered always. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandals abusing the "I forgot my password" feature[edit]

I've gotten two "someone requested a new password" emails tonight, and I haven't used that feature for a long time. Fortunately, the email also tells me which IPs they are using. One IP was, not surprisingly, a vandal I blocked earlier today – 24.121.48.137 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The other, 64.12.116.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), is an AOL IP – another shocker. I don't suppose there is any way to stop this? I wouldn't mind having that feature turned off, as I don't intend to forget my password anytime soon... android79 02:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(Not an admin, but ...) For the record, I got one of these emails, too -- however, it was sent to another valid email of mine, different than the one I have on my preferences. This means someone is doing some kind of research on me, I guess. Question before the house: Is there, do you think, something I should be doing about this besides ignoring it? If so, what? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 14:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Just remove your email from the preferences. (Yes, it has the side effect of also disabling the Wikipedia email feature.) --cesarb 03:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd like folks to be able to contact me by email... have cake, eat it too, etc. It's stopped for now, so I suppose I'll just turn that off if it starts up again. Fortunately, you can just ignore the emails; I didn't realize that until I read one a little closer. Thanks. android79 03:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Admins who plan to block people must be contactable by email.Geni 03:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Might be worth filing a bug^Wfeature request, to a) allow someone to suppress the "send me my password" button and b) create a function where an active admin or a steward or a bureaucrat (whatever) can effectively send the password anyway - in other words, you tick a box somewhere, and whilst you can no longer press the button you can go into IRC and ask someone to do it for you. Bit kludgy, though, and would require someone to be persuaded to write it... maybe if this becomes a common problem. Shimgray | talk | 03:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
since the text is standadised couldn't you just set your account to lable it as spam?Geni 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
156.99.75.2 (talk · contribs) has also requested my password 8 times in a period of 15 minutes. This is a user that I and several others have warned against constant vandalism to Mac address using a variety of sock puppet IPs (all have been something to do with Minnesota). The same user is also very likely behind Weirdo1 (talk · contribs) which I believe to be a sock puppet of the IPs and designed to make it marginally harder to find out his IP. chowells 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not just prevent banned IP's from using the "I forgot my password" feature........ --ElvisThePrince 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've had this 'problem' too. On the principle of WP:BEANS, I suggest people delete the e-mail and forget it. If there is no response he'll get bored. --Doc ask? 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The BEANS are already out of the can if people are already abusing this feature. android79 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point, he seems to have got bored now. I think I got about 80 of the over the course of a few hours, which took all of two seconds to delete in KMail, so no damage done. Would still be nice if there was either a limit to the number of reminders that could be requested from an IP in a set time, or simply refusing any reminders from an IP that has been banned. chowells 13:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you take these ideas to Bugzilla:. I'd vote for a limit on one new password being requested in a 24 hour period, and for the feature being disabled for banned IP addresses. Thryduulf 15:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

82.42.151.164 (talk · contribs) requested my password five times within two minutes. --Neutralitytalk 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it?? More backlash against AOL??[edit]

"To be allowed to create accounts in this Wiki you have to log in and have the appropriate permissions", I don't understand--152.163.100.74 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind expanding? As far as I know, there haven't been any new hurdles to stop anyone from creating an account, and unless a new form of blocking has been implemented, you should be able to create an account freely. Perhaps you're referring to the Wikimedia Foundation's website? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That is a message that can be triggered if you start to create an accont and are blocked while doing so. I suspect shifiting from an unblocked to blocked ip while logging in will have a simular effect.Geni 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe we could change the MediaWiki message to something less confusing? Radiant_>|< 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Problem is that I don't know all the situations under which it can appear.Geni 00:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Unknown error #7489324 - please contact User:Geni and tell him the situation under which it appeared" :) Radiant_>|< 16:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
it's not an error it's a feuture (for people on wikis who want to limit account creation).Geni 02:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Has the AfD page been vandalized? When I try to go there, all I get is

<a href="/wiki/Main_Page" title="
User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm. Now it seems to be working. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
looks like one of the ways that wikipedia can fall over although at this time of day that should not happening.Geni 05:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A cut and paste bot[edit]

Someone from 204.238.213.2 (talk · contribs) was running an unauthorized bot that did a series of cut and paste page moves. The logic behind moves might be valid, but the bot was blanket reverting human editors who reverted the bot so I blocked this address for 24 hours. Please help with cleaning up this mess! jni 08:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

El C's block of Marsden[edit]

User:El C has blocked User:Marsden for 24 hours for "Disruption; vicious and mean-spirited attacks. Shows no remorse or willingness to stop." From the context, it's clear that El C was prompted to block by personal attacks directed against himself. I have a couple of problems with this. One, unless I've missed something, admins do not have the right to summarily block users for personal attacks. Second, it does not look good for an admin to settle personal grievences using his own blocking powers.

There are established mechanisms for dealing with users with behavioural problems (RfC, RfAr, mediation etc), but blocking someone who insults you isn't one of them. I've asked El C, and he will not unblock, therefore I invite further comment from the community.

See also User talk:Marsden. — Matt Crypto 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is too fucking funny. I accused El C of Stalinism, and he banned me from speaking for 24 hours. I'm glad I didn't accuse him of being an ass-rapist. Marsden 03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not clear; I made the same warning weeks ago before ever undergoing any attack by Marsden. I only underwent the latest ones for stepping in while he was attacking other users, without showing any willingness to stop. MCrypto did not seem to bother in studying the case closely prior to coming his so-called clear conclusion, which is false. Point is: the user shows no willingness to stop the disruption. El_C 20:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is precedent for blocking for personal attacks, under the 'general disruption' clause. This is controversial, however. A casual look at Marsden's history shows recent unpleasantness targeted at El C, Fred Bauder, Jayjg and SlimVirgin. None of this is really grounds for a block by itself, but thse could well be the tip of the iceberg. So I don't really see a reason to doubt El C here, but maybe he could cite an earlier diff or two to clear it up? Radiant_>|< 20:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that Marsden has engaged in widespread personal attacks, and dispute resolution is probably warranted. However, I strongly believe that an admin should not block someone in response to a personal attack directed at himself. — Matt Crypto 20:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

While blocking for individual personal attacks is not policy, blocking for continued personal attacks, especially when combined with other disruptive activities, is not unheard of. Marsden has been quite free with his insults for some time, and not just against El C - there are literally dozens of examples. He has also promoted the claim that editors he opposes are paid propaganda agents, and described those who disagree with him as "Evil".[2] He recruits people to revert war for him,[3] [4] [5] and even gives them explicit instructions on how to do so.[6] [7] He has also made it clear that he sees his main role here as "holding a stick over my head"[8] and making SlimVirgin's Wikipedia experience "very unpleasant".[9] I think the real question here is, why only a 24 hour block? Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that the main reason Jay didn't give a diff for my "claim" that he is a paid propagandist is that made it on another user's talk page, and Jay only saw it because he was Wikistalking. Anyway, he clearly isn't bothered by it, because due to his constant repeating of it, my private, semi-humorous comment has become widely known. Marsden 03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Undisputably Marsden is a problem; it's just a question of what is the appropriate measure to take. I would argue we should use the normal Wikipedia processes for problem users. I recall another editor who couldn't refrain from personal attacks a while back (User:Irate). I would very much like to have blocked him on the spot when he started shouting "s*** for brains" at people (including myself), but, because we have a dispute resolution system, we took him through the process of RfC and RfAr. Eventually he was given a personal attack parole, and then banned. It was long winded, but was fair and accountable. When an admin blocks someone who's just insulted him, it looks like he's settling a personal grievance, and it doesn't look fair and accountable. — Matt Crypto 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It all depends on how disruptive the editor is; some disruptive editors, who contribute in other ways, are taken to RfC and RfAR. Other editors, who contribute little, are simply blocked, and sometimes permanently banned. The Arbitration Committee has actually turned back cases of users who are so disruptive that they should obviously just be blocked, rather than taken through a lengthy Arbitration process. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is one problem here. Suppose I see a disruptive user who has been warned in the past, and I decide to block him for some time, then that would likely stand undisputed. Now suppose that rather than blocking him outright, I try to discuss the issue with him and make him see the light. If this works, then I'm happy. If this user instead starts insulting me, then I would be tempted to block him - not for personal reasons, but because I believe I could have blocked him earlier and tried reasoning first, and it obviously failed. See the problem? Obviously admins should never block in retaliation, but I see no problem with them blocking for something that may appear like retaliation at first sight, but at second glance really isn't, e.g. because they had a valid reason earlier and tried something else at first. Radiant_>|< 20:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • An easier solution would be to drop a note on, say, this board, and get other admins to discuss it and implement it if they agree. It is hard to tell to what extent El C's block was a retaliation for the personal attack directed against him immediately prior, but an admin should not be giving even the appearance of such. — Matt Crypto 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No need; I was only attacked for having tried to stop the disruption, so that is no grounds to withdraw. There were no attacks —but there were warnings— beforehand. Did you happen to miss that portion of my explanation? I noted it a few times already, so... El_C 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no, that would be a lie, El C. I think I first encountered your Stalinist self when you were acting as a revert-puppet for Jay and Slim, reverting to a bad edit. You've been in league with those two asses, and now you've abused your miss-placed admin powers to help them promote their POV agenda. You're a real prize, El C. Goan. Marsden 03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read your explanation, but I maintain that it gives the wrong impression when, after someone insults an admin, the admin responds by blocking him. It does look like retaliation, regardless of the motives. You say "no need", but there is a need for admins to be seen to be acting above board. Why not, after having being personally attacked by Marsden, have posted the situation to this board? That way someone else could have blocked (if the case was as obvious as you maintain), and there could be no possible grounds for complaint. — Matt Crypto 21:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
          • It dosen't appear that way to me. There were enough administrators and arbitrators on the scene. Even Marsden would not try to pretend it came out of the blue. Your advocacy, therefore, seems hasty. (Un?)Incidentally, I am hopeful you yourself would be able to restrain yourself by refraining from personally attacking me in the course of this particular exchange. Your reference to me as "Nazi-like" very recently was the worse thing I was ever called on Wikipedia. And I was far from impressed with or moved by your so-called unreserved apology in light of its highly questionable preamble. El_C 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
            • *sigh*. Why not bury the hatchet? I've already apologised unreservedly; what more would you like? I note that you have also referred to me as "Nazi-like", and that previously, you had, without any provocation, alleged that my (and others') actions were "as far from good faith as were imaginable", and that they "revolted" you. You haven't shown a hint of regret to any of that, but, regardless, my apology still stands. — Matt Crypto 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
              • You've had that chance and I was very much open to it, but you opted to blow it by going on and on until ending (no, not actually ending: many reversions on my talk page by yourself ensued, despite all protests that your input was no longer sought at that time) in straight vicious insult-mode. T'was hardly a burial (not to mention reconciliation). And as for my strong comments about a lack of goodfaith on your and other's part, that does not equate with being called "Nazi-like," which your so-called unreserved apology oh so cleverly seems to imply. If your apology still stands on those terms, then it is still rejected as such. Sigh, indeed. Thanks for not unblocking without seeking an explanation and evidence this time, though (it really did save a lot of potential trouble and further acrimony, which I hope you appreciate). El_C 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                • I recall making an effort to reconcile our differences, but you simply rebuffed it. Again, though, you criticise me for having called your censoring behaviour "Neo-Nazi" like. I regret doing that, and I have, as mentioned, apologised unreservedly. Of course, you have referred to my behaviour as Nazi-like as well, so I have to wonder why you don't take your own advice about "vicious insults"? Moreover, saying someone is acting as "far from good-faith as is imaginable" is a very grave insult, as you are essentially saying the person's motives are as evil as can be imagined -- even worse than any Neo-Nazi's motives. That's certainly the worst thing anyone's said to me on Wikipedia. You seem to understand that insults can hurt you, but you don't appear appreciate that your insults likewise hurt others. — Matt Crypto 22:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • That wasn't burying the hatchet but continuing to use it with abandon instead of saying: we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course I did not refer to [your] behaviour as Nazi-like. And WP:POINT, Wikipedia as an experiment in free speech, and all the rest that was implied by my charges, does not translate into being titled "Nazi-like." It did seem to me, as it still does now, in being as "far from good-faith as is imaginable," but I never alleged that there was a unified agenda, nor that it was in direct service of the Nazi you recklessly unblocked. El_C 22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Of course, you did refer to my exclamations as Nazi-like, despite your denial [10]. But at least I've made some sort of effort at making peace, and I've owned up when I've made mistakes. From what I can tell, it hasn't ever even begun to dawn on you that you might have ever done anything remotely wrong in this sorry saga. Rather, you simply reiterate your insults. I've had enough. — Matt Crypto 23:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                      • Hah! I did not even notice that. I meant you refering to myself as "Nazi-like," not that this reference was a Nazi-like exclamtion on your part. That's just my bad grammar. El_C 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                      • That's just isn't something I would say, ever. I never use words like that lightly in a conversation, especially with regards to conduct (!). Read it again with context: ... on Matt Crypto's ["]Nazi-like["] exclamations against [depiction of] myself and his many, many other insults.. I did not [mean to] say his exclamations were Nazi-like (!). Wow. El_C 02:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Moreover, getting back to the topic, the point of raising the issue here (or on other pages) was not simply that admins and arbitrators would be informed, but rather that Marsden would be dealt with by an admin who wasn't already a participant in a dispute with him. — Matt Crypto 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
              • El C's only "dispute" with Marsden appears to be the fact that he objected to Marsden's continual use of personal attacks. As such, I see no reason why El C should not block for those attacks, when they continued even after warnings. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Because I wasn't in-dispute with him except as an admin; I agreed with most of his changes to the content. El_C 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Quite, but El C clearly was in a dispute with Marsden over this, and El C wasn't without a touch of incivility himself (nothing like Marsden's of course): "Who needs to grow out of (a lot) and who needs to grow up seems rather clear here, too. Needless to say, I feel utterly crushed and greatly humilated by the sheer poignancy of your un-patronizing, brilliant criticisms. The futility of keeping Marsden (and his ever-so volatile emotions) on-topic, there's an essay topic. [11]. Given an exchange like the above, I believe it would be better to handle this, if not through Wikipedia's dispute resolution system, then via another, non-involved admin. — Matt Crypto 22:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • That's after he told me I should grow out of stalinism, without any provocation. Your agenda here to undermine me seems clear, and I do not view it in good faith. 'Twas a nice attempt at vengence, though. Better luck next time. El_C 22:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • Perhaps you should consider assuming good faith? I would have supported you if you'd, say, filed an RfC against Marsden, and I would have similarly contacted any other admin if I'd noticed they'd blocked someone directly after receiving an insult from them. — Matt Crypto 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                      • Would you prefer it if El C unblocked so you could immediately re-block? I'm sure that could be arranged. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                        • Everyone has to assume goodfaith except for Matt Crypto (and his infamous unblocks, of course). El_C 22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                          • El C: As far a I recall, I've only ever unblocked one user (Amalekite), and I apologised for my mistake. I didn't unblock here, you'll notice. — Matt Crypto 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                            • Unlike in a certain infamous case; the AGF continuum, if you will. El_C 23:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                        • Jayg: I initally thought dispute resolution would be more appropriate, since traditionally personal attacks weren't handled by admins discretion. Since people are happy with blocking for personal attacks, I can go along with it. I was also pointing out at the same time that it was not wise for El C to personally block someone he'd exchanged sharp words with. — Matt Crypto 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                          • Except, sometimes its unavoidable to be subjected to sharp words from disruptive users. El_C 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (bringing conversation back to the left) I don't understand what the fuss is about. Marsden attacked, defamed, and generally acted poorly towards El C. He attempted, and the other users, to reconcile, and when the personal attacks went too far, El C rightly blocked him for a simple twenty-four hours for violation of multiple policies. If we tried the dispute resolution with every user, say this one, I believe Wikipedia would fall to pieces. There are places for RfC's, and there are not. Blatant continuing personal attacks go under the latter category. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, Bratsche, that there are many that wish to turn Wikipedia into a bureaucracy, whenever it suits them, at least. El_C 22:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay everybody, can we calm down here please? For the sake of argument, you can assume that Marsden was unblocked by whomever you like, and reblocked by me. I do believe I count as an uninvolved party as I've never even heard of the guy. Also, some of you should familiarize yourself with Godwin's law. I say we drop this issue and get on with the encyclopedia. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm happy with the accountability issue now people have chipped in here in support of the block. (It might be worth updating Wikipedia:Blocking policy to explicitly indicate that a continuing pattern of personal attacks counts as disruption). — Matt Crypto 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Diffs[edit]

[12]:

Knee-jerk reverts result in crap'

Read this sentence, which you reverted to, and please explain what it means:

"For nineteen years that followed the end of the Mandate until the 1967 Six Day War, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem but no Palestinian state was created there."

It seems to me that there was no such thing as "annexed East Jerusalem" prior to 1967 -- are you and Jayjg just rewriting history again? Or did you think it means that Jordan occupied the West Bank but separately annexed East Jerusalem? Why would anyone write anything so ridiculous, though, when the only "annexing" Jordan ever did was to "annex" the entire West Bank, albeit barely anyone else recognized it.

Please stop making an ass of yourself, Slim. Marsden 00:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NOT, and WP:WQT. Thanks. El_C 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Diff 2:

With Jay and Slim, any assumption I had of good faith was beaten out of me long ago. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They are just nasty, and not only with me -- I am appalled at some of the veiled threats they have made against users who are making their very first contributions here; they must scare away dozens of potential contributers whose only mistake is thinking that their input might be welcome. When it comes to their pet topics, they are bullies, pure and simple. Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. If you feel you have grievences that need addressing, proceed through the appropriate channels, this article talk page is designed to discuss the pertinent material, not provide a venu for personal diatribes. If you keep up the "they are just nasty" comments and so on, you will be blocked for disruption. Please take that as a final warning. El_C 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (emphasis added)
If that's not an "acceptable response," you'd better ban me, El C, because SlimVirgin and Jayjg really are just nasty. And I have little patience for the continual threats -- many from SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- about how I am "being disruptive" and how they are "warning" me, etc., etc., etc. El C, I don't need Wikipedia, and I'm not going to put up with bullshit from anyone. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are just nasty in how they protect their POV here. That's the fact, as I see it. I won't pretend otherwise. Strike your colors, El C. Marsden 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
What? Why? Anyway, there's no need to ovenuance so much. It isn't about what you think or in playing pretend, it's how you choose to express yourself, and where. Even if you follow this through the propper channels, by outlining your grievences within the framework of a clearly documunted exposition, the rules are that you must conduct yourself with disciplined moderation viz. personal comments. I fail to see how that hinders you from raising any relevant point. The rest my response can be read here. El_C 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I take your threat against me to be an effort to disrupt debate. You are frankly, El C, commenting on something you don't know very much about, and making an ass of yourself in doing so. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are dishonest debaters. I can document that. If you don't think that's nasty, I suspect that you are in the minority in your opinion. What did you expect to accomplish by making your empty threat against me? It seems underhanded and dishonest to me, El C. Marsden 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
It's unfortunate you feel this way, but I fail to see a reason why you should be allowed to direct personal insults at anyone, nor how these somehow amount to an integral component of your position. El_C 21:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how any legitimate purpose is served by pretending that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are not really nasty bullies when they in fact are really nasty bullies -- should we pretend that pit vipers are just big caterpillars, too? I wish someone had let me know that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are really nasty bullies when I first encountered them; it would have saved me the time I spent trying to be reasonable with them. Frankly, if participating in Wikipedia requires subscribing to a falsehood, I have better things to do. Marsden 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This becoming highly circular and repetitive; you must adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, this isn't negotiable. El_C 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Should I hold my breath while I wait for your apology for implying that I have not been exhibiting good faith, and that I have been exhibiting "venom" -- echoing SlimVirgin's personal attack against me, by the way? Or are these rules that I have to adhere to, but you don't? Marsden 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Diff 3:

I'm glad we got to the point where we have an accurate title, and I'm not just saying it because I was the one who came up with it (or borrowed it from EB, rather) & did the renaming; your OT(I) gave me the association of territories being occupied from Israel, and in that sense, not much more clear than OT(P) (!). Anyway, lot can change for the better with gestures of good-will, and such a process will greatly help to distinguish those who aim at positive improvements from the perpetually disruptive [...] But, the bottom line, it's nearly-impossible to operate with all this negative energy that never seems to dissipate. And as a result, an intellectually honest and unbiased presentation suffers, because some are unable to emotionally restrain themselves from repeatedly resorting to personal attacks, simplistic schemes (as well as simplistic conspiracies alleging these, as expanded on above), which then ultimately prove self-defeating and work to perpeturate the bias, by expending so much needless energy in trying to defeat it. [...] Thanks in advance for reading closely & critically. El_C 14:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


All (and many other instances), of course, before ever being attacked by Marsden myself. So, should I unblock him simply for being attacked in pressing on him (recently; initially, gently) that attacks and disruption are unacceptable & unrpoductive? Or should he be allowed to continue to vicioudly insult and disrupt while an RfC, RfAr, etc. are ongoing? (see Fred Bauder pertinent note on wikilawyering to understand what I mean). El_C 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Marsen's input is not totally worthless or completely unwelcome, but enough is enough. I fully support El C's action in this case. Fred Bauder 21:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Fred. In light of the evidence submitted above, I think it has been established that this was not personal retaliation nor a product of knee-jerk immediacy. There simply seems to be no way to convince Marsden to stop. I should know (again, see above). El_C 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Thanks for the explanation. Radiant_>|< 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I both agree with the block and agree with Matt that it still would have been a little better had El C not made it, but instead asked someone else. If we can't enforce the policy against personal attacks, we are just letting disruptive users run the place. We have an encyclopedia to write, so lets all calm down and go do that. - Taxman Talk 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, goodluck with that. El_C 00:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, El C. I'm glad the block is supported. As Fred said, enough is enough. Aaron's idea (below) is interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Notifying an uninvolved admin[edit]

As to placing a note so that another (uninvolved) admin may do the business - there does exist WP:PAIN.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks policy[edit]

To generalise, it would seem there has been some change in the community's view on personal-attack blocks over the last year. When posting above, I was recalling old debates such as Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old) (August 2004), which attempted to establish a provision for admins to block for personal attacks. The proposal was quite well-supported but did not achieve consensus at the time (I voted in favour); opponents argued it gave too much power to admins. Here's the proposal:

Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a “cooling down” period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term – one to three days normally, and a week at most. Although blocks may be reapplied if personal attacks continue, repeated violations should be referred to the Arbitration committee. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (i.e. replacing their userpage with “U SUCK!!1!1!!”).

It seems that this formerly-rejected proposed policy, which is very applicable in this situation, is now viewed de facto as acceptable admin practice (for example, El C's block would be acceptable under this provision); I think this is a good thing, but it would be even better if this proposal was now explicitly recognised as official policy. In cases when an admin is attacked, it's more important than usual that he act within clear guidelines, because there is potential for abuse. What do people think: is it time to resurrect this old proposal? — Matt Crypto 10:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Given the sheer growth of WP since August 2004, I'd say this is reasonable. Also see Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks, which cites a number of uncontested blocks for personal attacks happening already. Radiant_>|< 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link; I'd missed that proposal (which should have been obvious, really, given the name of the old proposal page!) — Matt Crypto 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Personal attacks are a different type of vandalism. I believe that they should be dealt with more strongly than other types of vandalism. Even if a serious personal attack is made in the heat of the moment, a cooling-down-period block would not be out of place. I think we can all say that vandalism is silly and annoying, personal attacks are nasty. Perhaps nastiness should be the measuring stick for our response to this kind of nuisance. --Gareth Hughes 12:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Second block[edit]

Based on the comments just left above, namely [13], which occured just a few hours after the last block, I've reblocked for 24 hours. (Personal attacks like "Stalinist," "ass," etc. just in that one diff.) Frankly, that Marsden comes back right after the block and makes personal attacks here, of all places, is appalling. I'm open to discussion if anyone disagrees with this block. Dmcdevit·t 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I kind of disagree with it. Only 24 hours? Don't we have a policy, or at least practice, whereby blocks get longer in cases of immediate repeat offences (of an "appalling" nature, yet) when the block expires? --Bishonen | talk 03:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That's no matter. I was being conservative because the idea is that in 24 hours, we should have at least some feedback. Kind of like a placeholder block. Blocks can always be extended. Since I was inviting discussion, I didn't think there was urgency, and kept it at the minimum 24 for now. Which is to say that personally I think it should be at least 48 hours as well, but thought we could agree on the length together. After all, this is the Admins' Noticeboard :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that El C, as an involved party, should not have blocked; on the other hand, Marsden's comments above suggest to me that, in general, blocking was probably a fine idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Third block[edit]

I've blocked User:Marsden again, this time for a week. He has returned using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and is apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, posted trolling text to a bunch of talk pages about "nigger lovers", and accused User:Bishonen of "helping to promote hate speech". Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I repost here what I earlier posted on Jayjg´s talk-page (and which he has not responded (yet) to):

Firstly: as I recall: Marsden wasn´t blocked for revert warring, he was blocked for personal attacs.
Secondly: 69.138.215.194 has been editing since August, he was wished welcome on 22 Aug by user Humus sapiens (who had "noticed high quality of your contributions"...doesn´t sound like H.S. general opinion about Marsdens edits(?))
Thirdly: Marsden never edited Self-hating Jew as far as I can see (which 69.138.215.194 edits now)
Fourthly: Isn´t Marsden allowed to edit under his own user-name now? The "block"-period mentioned on his user-page has certainly passed. Cant´t he then edit either under his old user-name, or any new user-name, or anon.? Regards, Huldra 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And I repost the response from my talkpage (which was actually responded to 5 minutes before you posted here):

First, continuted disruption, trolling, and personal attacks (e.g. accusing people of promoting hate speech) are blockable offences.
Second, 69.138.215.194 is Marsden's IP - I suppose he imagines that using it gives him a measure of anonymity, in order to sow doubt in people's minds as to whether or not it is really him.
Third, Marsden has indeed never edited Self-hating Jew before - more proof he is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia.
Fourth, Marsden is indeed allowed to edit under his old name, but not disrupt, troll, or attack, under his old name, or under any IP. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You are quite right about the timing; as you in previous discussion with me have responded on my talk-page, I watched that and missed your response on your talk-page. My mistake. Any futher comments (and answers to the above) will come on your user-page, as I´m unsure as to wether I should post here. Regards, Huldra 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are correct, I should have at least posted to your talk page as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Huldra, don't be unsure about posting here, please post any relevant info and arguments in this thread. It's useful to keep it all together. As for Marsden accusing me of hate speech, it came 9 minutes after I'd reverted his filth on El C's page (a little proud of my quick draw there :-)), so no doubt that was the occasion. Presumably that means I'm now burned as marsden-blocker. Suppose he gets a bot and trolls all admins, will that mean nobody can ever block him again? Bishonen|talk 23:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I´m compromising: I´m posting some here, but the full list is on Jayjg´s user-page, I just copy the "rest" here:

I do not know what proof you (i.e.Jayjg) have that 69.138.215.194 is a sockpuppet for Marsden, but if you say you have proof, then ofcourse I accept if. However, regarding what you write above: "Marsden has indeed never edited Self-hating Jew before - more proof he is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia." Is Marsden/69.138.215.194 wikistalking you? I have taken a closer look at the edits of 69.138.215.194 (nb: I have only included the article-pages, not the talk-pages. Also I have not included the very first 4 edits, in August, (all to British Mandate of Palestine) they seem "genuine" pos. contribution). The rest is as follows (roughly! I might have missed some!):

[.....cut out list: full list on Jayjg´s user-page.......]

To sum up: only in one case has 69.138.215.194 reverted/edited just after Jayjg (in Self-hating Jew). However, about half of all edits of 69.138.215.194 have been just after user John_McW, or they have been reversed by the same user. Indeed, it seems to me that 69.138.215.194 has definitely been wikistalking John_McW, and partially the opposite. (Actually, both user:John_McW and user:69.138.215.194 have been gone from WP for long periods, but if one appear here, then the other seem to appear just afterwards.) Now, if, as you say, 69.138.215.194 is a sockpuppet of Marsden, and Marsden "is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia." (according to Jayjg), the why on earth is this sockpuppet actually wikistalking John_McW? I just don´t understand. Regards, Huldra 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Huldra, as I posted on your talk page, that IP address is Marsden's, and so it's Marsden's contribs you need to look at, not just the IP's, if you want to see evidence of his harassment of, and personal attacks on, Jayjg, and also personal attacks on El C, Fred Bauder, myself, and possibly others. It all gets a bit much after a while. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not engage in personal abuse. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom cases closed[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2 cases. →Raul654 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg[edit]

Wikipedia has made national news in Norway because of an accusation of pedophilia in the English-language Wikipedia entry on Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister. The accusation was removed 22.5 hrs later. See Talk:Jens Stoltenberg. My reaction is that the IP in question should be blocked for a year, but I'd rather see what others think first. (NB Daniel Brandt's argument about a platform for libel suddenly seems very pertinent.) Rd232 talk 11:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • See also WP:ANI which talks about the same issue. But generally, don't block IPs for more than a month (since they can change). Radiant_>|< 11:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I know, and looking at the contributions in more detail it looks like a shared IP anyway. So doing nothing is probably the best thing, but it doesn't feel adequate for this situation. :( Rd232 talk 11:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There was a conversation about this at no:Wikipedia:Tinget (the Norwegian counterpart to the Village Pump). Cnyborg has had a conversation both with the Dagbladet journalist and the IT-man responsible for that address. The IP belongs to Buskerud county, and is shared by the schools in the area. The IT-man has promised to investigate who is responsible for this, so I don't think that blocking the IP will do much good now. The vandalism is really of a common type, but in more than 90% of the cases the RC patrol will catch it. It was unfortunate that this one slipped through. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As Sjakkalle says, I've talked to the head of IT service in Buskerud County, and he believes (as I do) that it's a computer at one of their schools. Blocking it would have very little effect on the person who vandalized the article, but would prevent anyone else who gets stuck with that IP-adresse from editing. With school or library computers, I find that a block of 1 to 3 hours does the trick; the person is stopped, and someone else takes over the computer. He asked me for the adress and the exact time; as the person vandalized two articles (Jens Stoltenberg and Red-Green Coalition) over a span of 15 minutes, he/she was logged in long enough that there's a fair chance they can trace it. Since it's against the rules of the schools to use the computers for such activities, they're quite anxious to get to the bottom of it. In other words, we've already done something by informing those responsible for the IP-address, and even if they can't trace it to a particular person, they will talk to the users about this and keep an eye on things. Cnyborg 12:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, good. Rd232 talk 12:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It made national news just for being on a stupid website!? Wow! That's awesome! I give my congrats to whoever posted that there.--71.107.172.254 12:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the latest onslaught of vandalism towards this article, I have protected it now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by 67.176.133.152[edit]

  • Steven Brandon sent an e-mail to the help desk reporting vandalism by this IP.

I would like to report some bogus material posted in the Peterborough Chronicle article. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterborough_Chronicle&diff=27986286&oldid=27985217.

“The Peterborough (Just like Family Guy the crappy show that Harrison Siegel watches, what a piece of crap!!!) Chronicle…”

I consider this guy (67.176.133.152) to be nothing more than a vandal (no offense intended to Germanic tribe of that name).

He has evidently been busy elsewhere too.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.176.133.152. Could you please block this individual’s editing privledges?

Thank you,

Steve


Steven C. Brandon, Ph.D.

  • Has any action been taken against this user as yet?

Capitalistroadster 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the block log and talk page. --cesarb 22:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with Checkuser?[edit]

I've been happy to notice that expanding checkuser rights has been approved by the board, and that meta:Requests_for_permissions has some checkuser rights requests for arbitrators (to be precise, Raul654, Fred Bauder, Kelly Martin, The Epopt and Jayjg). There's also some opposition there, and a request from Datrio to discuss it on enwiki. So what's going on? Radiant_>|< 00:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Check the meta requests for permissions page - specifically, Kelly's comment. The stewards are basically refusing to do their jobs. →Raul654 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
They are free to do that. That is why this things are done by humans rather than bots. Considering recent and current events giveing Kelly Martin checkuser rights is a really really bad idea. Giveing Kelly Martin checkuser rights after a closed door disscussion would be one of the most effective ways of damageing arbcom and steward credibilty I can think of.Geni 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Intersting Kelly Martin withdrew and still ended up with checkuser rights.Geni 15:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not quite how it happened, now, is it. You were corrected about this on wikien-l by several people. Now, how did events actually transpire? - David Gerard 16:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis unbanned and on probation[edit]

Hi everyone.

I know that this is probably the most incredible thing hearing this coming from my own mouth, but it's true. I have talked to Jarlaxle and he has been unbanned. The important tidbits behind his unbanning include the following:

  • Mediation/Mentorship
  • A formal apology given to Linuxbeak, Psychonaut, Anthere, NicholasT and anyone else who he may have caused harm
  • Repair any damage caused by acts of sockpuppetry/impersonation on other Wikis
  • A probationary period for as long as his defunct ArbCom case originally had set as the penal period (one year)

Jarlaxle presented an apology on the #wikipedia channel and was officially welcomed back to Wikipedia.

See? There is always hope, and I am truly proud that we can welcome Jarlaxle back as a productive and active editor. Welcome back! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 06:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think you've worked this through successfully, WELL DONE! I'll email the AC list to make sure we don't have any crossing of streams - David Gerard 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Linuxbeak or I will probably end up writing a note in the signpost, this is rather big. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Make sure to check and write down what you want to write at the Newsroom (and the inner-room) first. Also, I'm sure Ral would agree with me, but Linuxbeak probably shouldn't write the article because he's involved. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NowCommons[edit]

The backlog on Category:NowCommons is getting pretty huge, and several editors on the talk page have expressed a desire for someone to work on reducing the number of duplicated images. I'd be willing to chip away at a little of this, but Geni's comment there suggests that there might be some policy reasons behind not deleting NowCommons images yet (i.e. that it's easier to protect images used here than if they're over on Commons). What's the consensus on this? MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 06:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat in the minority on this, but I've never seen much benefit in deleting images moved to Commons. If you assume disk space is not an issue (which is what they keep telling us), then having a local copy increases our control over the image. For example, allowing it to be protected and keeping things in English only. It also avoids the thorny legal issues incumbent with the GFDL in that we must make sure all contributors (and preferably all versions) are carefully documented if an image is to be moved to Commons and the original deleted. Dragons flight 06:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Having images at Commons is problematic, because ideally each image should have a reasonably detailed explanatory caption, in the same language as the page that incorporates it and with wikilinks to the Wikipedia that page is part of. That's no really possible in a standalone language-neutral Commons. Basically, Commons doesn't really work. -- Curps 06:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link. I guess I'll look around for some backlogs elsewhere, then. MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 01:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
When images are re-uploaded it is mostly with the intention of using them in other projects. If the English description page is copied along, the user is mention with his user page linked to, the license is correct, then I see no reason not to delete the image, because having copies at different places of an image is bad in case one gets improved.
In the link provided, they argue about multiple file version. In my estimation, we need not be concerned about this currently, as I guess the vast bulk of images tagged "NowCommons" do not have multiple version?

Remove Protection From GNAA Page[edit]

Please remove the deletion protection status from Gay Nigger Association of America. This page blatantly breaks various Wikipedia content 'rules' (propoganda, hoax, etc.) and goes against the ethics of Wikipedia. The only reason it has survived all the previous deletions is due to the members of GNAA 'protecting' their precious entry.

Stinkfoot 11:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored. Alphax τεχ 12:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This user also listed User:Timecop's user page on AFD, so you might want to keep an eye on it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kirstin[edit]

Yesterday I blocked User71.1.10.2 for 24 for vandalism, personal attacks and threats. This had to do with the creation of Kirstin which I judged to be a nn-bio/nonsense as did User:Zaf. Today this person returned as User:68.84.20.247 and first left me a message on my talk page. They then recreated the Kirstin article which this time included personal attacks on Zaf and myself. I did not want to block the user because of not wishing to appear as if I was punishing the user. However, I did delete the Kirstin article and then protected it so it could not be recreated. Could someone check out my actions and see if I have acted correctly? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done, Cambridge. Focus on keeping warm up there. Karmafist 19:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT unbanned and on probation[edit]

I swear I have a.) lost my mind and b.) have grown soft in my old age ;-)

I have been talking to MARMOT (yes, MARMOT) and after discussing this with a few other administrators, we have decided to allow him to return to Wikipedia. Like JarlaxleArtemis, MARMOT is not getting a free return. The rules and terms of his unbanning include the following:

  • A formal and open apology written to Linuxbeak, Phroziac, Cool_Cat, and others that he has caused harm to
  • Mentorship/mediation, which is to be pursued immediately
  • A probation sentence of one full year from the moment of his unbanning
  • Ceasing of all harmful activity against Wikipedia and it's users (including IRC)
  • An indication of behavioral improvement, marked by an RFC, after three months

Let it also be known that MARMOT has indicated that he understands that if he takes this display of Wikipedia:Assume good faith annd abuses it, he will be promptly rebanned and will never be allowed back to Wikipedia.

...so... let's try to welcome MARMOT back to the community. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic work Linuxbeak. After those successful outcomes, I hereby suggest that you open negotiations with Willy.;) --Doc ask? 21:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Willy has already expressed his remorse and promised never to vandalize again; check the mailing list. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that? Titoxd(?!?) 21:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me find it... Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Here 'ya go: [14]. You can check the list here and view the responses to the mail - it's near the bottom under the thread "Clearing my Conscience". Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 22:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Dang, does that mean that unblocking Willy on Wheels might not be a farfetched idea? My eyes will jump out if he actually proves to be a good editor and eventually end up on WP:LA... Titoxd(?!?) 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Willy for Arbcomm! --Doc ask? 22:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
In light of this, I've removed all the autorems I can find on MARMOT in IRC. He should consider himself on a similar probation there. Phil Sandifer 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
So apparently I missed the announcement of Be Nice to Vandals Day, and while the idealist in me likes the idea of reforming trouble makers, if we are going to give them a second chance, have we considered maybe asking for some real life insurance? For example asking them to edit under their real name or provide details about their ISP and who to contact about abuse? Anonymity is a priviledge we enjoy here, but I would feel more comfortable about welcoming back problem users if they were willing to stake their real life reputations on improved behaviour. Dragons flight 21:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The insurance that we have is that any admin can immediately block a known problem user given a single sign of relapsing into old ways. We don't have to go through everything again - if the vandal hasn't reformed, a block can be immediately placed. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Being blocked wasn't exactly seen as much of an inconvenience for these guys in the past, so I don't see why the possibility of their being blocked again is much of a reason for them to go straight. Basically, I'd like to know that they had some greater reason to behave than merely the threat of being blocked. Dragons flight 21:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Look at it this way: they were already blocked. If they really wanted to, they could have made another account and started doing what they were doing all over again. If they act up again, we revert and then we block their account. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Look at it my way, you got them to agree to some strong terms of their reconciliation (or should I say probation and parole?), but in the future when they get tired with mentorship and RFCs, what is to stop them from saying "Fuck this", and starting it all again? A persistent, returning vandal comes to us ready to make amends and concessions and yet in the long run we have no greater power to stop rouge behavior than we did before. Maybe today's vandals will actually decide to walk to the straight path (here's hoping), but in the long run I am sure we will see vandals for whom reform is short-lived. A small number of such persistent vandals represent some of the most destructive influences on Wiki, and if we are going to let them back inside the gates, I would have liked to gotten more in the bargain than concillitory words and promises of mentorship and probation. Oh well, too late now, and still probably better to know what they are up to than not. Dragons flight 23:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I also would caution against treating dealings with other users as bargains and negotiations. Phil Sandifer 23:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith is an essential guideline for dealing with users who we know little about. I think we sometimes take AGF a bit too far and start acting like we should put a lot of effort into reforming problem users. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see MARMOT and WoW making contributions, but there does come a point where "assuming good faith" leads to "ignoring reality". Carbonite | Talk 23:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Assuming good faith when a manifest effort to show it is being made is common sense. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's see how this turns out. I do agree with Tony that's there not much to lose here. Carbonite | Talk 23:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Really, vandalism is a very small threat to the wiki, and we're on top of it. So there's nothing much to be gained by rehabilitating editors, in terms of controlling vandalism. However we do have a case here where a vandal who is blocked on sight has expressed a wish to perform useful edits. I don't see any problem with this, none of the change will facilitate further vandalism by that editor, and at the very worst we can go back to block-on-sight. In other words, there is no down side to this. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


I should mention that I know of atleast one vandal who is now an admin, after completely reforming and apparently becoming completely addicted. I won't mention the name though. :) --Phroziac(talk)Flag of Phyzech Republic.svg 01:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He got over 70 supports, and I nominated him... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The new ProbeCom... err, Mentorship Committee[edit]

In response to the recent unbannings of Marmot and Jarlaxle, a new cabal/organization/committee has been formed by none other than Redwolf24, Linuxbeak, NicholasT, and Cool Cat. Originally titled the Probation Committee, it is now entitled the Mentorship Committee. The basic idea is that monitoring users for probation violations was currently too difficult, since one could not put Special:Contribs on a watchlist, say, but rather one had to manually check periodically the user being probated's contribution page to see whether there were any new ones. So, Cool Cat adapted an IRC bot, which filter RC for edits by specified users, and sends them to a channel. Currently, the bot and members of MentCom are in the #wikipedia-probation channel on Freenode. This organization is open to all comers, although the three users specifically assigned to monitoring a probed user preferably are experienced admins, and being on the Board (or being a "Mentifex" as Board members are entitled) is currently restricted to founding members.

The ArbCom seems interested in whether this new committee will work out and intrigued by its potential, as mere hours after the first discussions began in #Wikipedia, ArbCom assigned MentCom to monitor Onefortyone in addition to the self-assigned monitoring of Jarlaxle Artemis and Marmot. Given that each case requires at least three users (preferably admins), and that there are a number of users under probation, more users and esp. admins are needed by MentCom. Volunteers are very welcome. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Good luck keeping an eye on 141, that's quite a few IP's to watch :) --Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Fortunately, the bot can handle ranges. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That'd be 80.141.0.0/16 and no, it can't handle ranges... :( --Redwolf24 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
What? Are you sure? I was pretty sure that I saw with mine own two eyes that the bot accepted a number of IP addresses after getting a range inputted, back when CC was fiddling with the bot. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It was one address at a time, and if I know my math, a /16 range is 65,536 addresses. You have any idea how much of a flood that is? o.O Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
A big one. We should watch the range regardless- it may be a lot of addresses, but it is not a lot of edits. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"The ArbCom seems interested in whether this new committee will work out and intrigued by its potential, as mere hours after the first discussions began in #Wikipedia, ArbCom assigned MentCom to monitor Onefortyone in addition to the self-assigned monitoring of Jarlaxle Artemis and Marmot." - this is a rather glaring mistatement. The Onefortyone case was closed over a week ago, and he was put on probation. Anyone can enforce the probation. If a group of users wishes to do it in a more organized fashion, that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean other users cannot. --→Raul654 04:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I wrote that because we didn't ask for 141 to be assigned us- we assigned ourselves Jarlaxle and Marmot, but we were busy organizing things. It was Fred Bauer (a member of ArbCom, I believe) who told us to monitor 141 mere hours after the page first went up. I think this unilateral, unsought action of his justifies my description. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine then, just so long as it's clear this in no way gives you exclusivity in the matter (e.g., others are free to enforce the probation too). →Raul654 04:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV dispute tags[edit]

User:Sean_Black has repeatedly removed the NPOV dispute tag from Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, despite the fact that there is a continuing debate on the talk page. It is my understanding that dispute tags are to be removed by consensus, not unilaterally by a disputant. --HK 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Three things: 1.The admin's noticeboard isn't the place for content disputes. I invite anyone to file an RfC if they feel that they article is not sourced well enough. 2. The "discussion" consists of two editors, one of whom readily admits that they're a LaRouche activist, insisting that the article contains orignal research and isn't cited well enough, not that it's disputed. 3. Several other editors have removed the tag as well.--Sean|Black 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a content dispute. I am asking for clarification on policy: it was my understanding that dispute tags are to be left in place until there is consensus on the talk page that the dispute has been resolved. Correct me if I'm wrong. --HK 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser page?[edit]

Now that we have a group of new checkusers, would it be useful to create a central page (e.g. WP:AN/CU) where others users can go to request a checkuser on an alleged sock, and hear the result (or, of course "request denied" if inappropriate)? Or would that be overdoing it? Radiant_>|< 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we need some (fairly informal) system, or it will become - 'I'll ask my pal in IRC', which feels a little, well... cabalish. I'd be interested to hear what those with the facility think. How would they wish to be approached with suggestions/requests for a check? Would they like to develop some guidelines to indicate in what situations they would consider a request, and when not to even bother asking? Doc ask? 16:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Here are the uses of the tool from m:CheckUser_Policy:

Use of the tool[edit]

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism or check abuse of sockpuppets, for example when there is a suspicion of illegal voting. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.

It is not allowed to use the tool for political control, nor to apply pressure on editors, nor as a threat toward an editor with whom you are in disagreement. There must be a valid motive to check a user (a bare disagreement with the leaders of a wiki is not a valid motive).

It is allowed to check an editor ips upon his specific request, when this user wants to publicly prove his innocence.

As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severally frowned upon.

Notification to the one checked is not mandatory, but checkuser may choose to tell the person checked if they feel it best. Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done as long as private information is not released.

Fred Bauder 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So what are the purposes sockpuppets can be used for and how serious does the matter need to be to justify using a sockpuppet check. A related question, if two accounts are doing the same bad thing, what is the point of doing one? Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Complaint about William M. Connolley's behaviour on the Aetherometry pages[edit]

On November 13, 2005, William M. Connolley deleted from a talk page, Talk:Aetherometry, a comment made by me that he didn't like, and changed the category for the Wikipedia entry Aetherometry in personal revenge for my comment. This is not only abusive, unprofessional, and damaging to Wikipedia's image as a dependable, unbiased source of actual knowledge, but also a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. FrankZappo 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He was being vigorously attacked, perhaps he did not do exactly the right thing, but I'd say under the circumstances it is forgivable. Fred Bauder 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He did it again, this time with a longer section, containing my orginal (reinstated) comment, a commentary on the reinstatement, and a paragraph addressed to another user and having nothing to do with Connolley. Moreover, removal of whatever it is that he doesn't like seems to be Connolley's standard reponse to feeling "attacked". I've seen him do this many times before. FrankZappo 20:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That experienced users who are experts on particular topics must respond in this way to being piled on [Deleted in the fashion of the fascist Connolley: do ya like'em apples?] is unfortunate. To act as though the burden of blame for this unfortunate thing rests upon the sensible, however, is doubly so. Phil Sandifer 21:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, this remark is formulated in terms that are a bit too abstract for me. When you refer to "experts on particular topics", are you referring to Connolley? If so, then I am sorry to say that you are mistaken; Connolley has absolutely no expertise in the subject of Aetherometry, and all his pronouncements on the subject have been aprioristic, ignorant, and arbitrary. What makes you call him as an "expert" in this context? And if by "crazed POV-pushers" you are referring to me, then I would like you to explain what exact POV it is I am supposedly pushing, and in what way I am "crazed". FrankZappo 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Connolley is a scientist. You are a believer that Aetherometry is a remotely reasonable thing to believe in. This pretty much renders Connolley more qualified to talk about any issue remotely related to science than you. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but no dice. I do not believe that "Aetherometry is a thing to believe in" any more than I believe that Quantum Mechanics is a "thing to believe in". What I believe is that Aetherometry is a serious scientific endeavour and should be treated as such. I say this on the basis of having studied and thought about the Aetherometry research papers, which report in great detail the experimental and theoretical methods used. As far as I know, Connoley has done no such thing. To call his appraisal "scientific" and mine that of a "believer" is completely upside down. FrankZappo 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
WMC is one of the most knowledgeable and level-heading contributors around here. Unfortunately the topics in which he has knowledge are infested with POV-pushers of bizarre pseudoscientific ideas. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience. Dunc| 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This remark is not applicable to the case at hand. Connolley has no knowledge of Aetherometry, and neither have you. It is you and Connolley that are pushing a POV - the POV that Aetherometry, about whose methods and approaches you know nothing, is "bizarre" and "pseudoscientific". Just because Connolley says so doesn't make it so. FrankZappo 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, it is so. Phil Sandifer 22:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I see. And it is I who is being called a "POV pusher"? FrankZappo 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page. This includes avoiding headings that are themselves personal attacks. I've changed the accusatory heading of this thread for a more neutral heading that also supplies more information. Please take a look at the TOC for the page, and you'll get a better idea of what kind of heading is appropriate. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've supplied still more information. FrankZappo 22:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been removing personal attacks from FZ, as per wiki policy. For example [15] removes a completely gratuitous attack; [16] re-removes the pointless insult and also FZ's "What is this, a kindergarten with a kapo system?". If this kind of stuff is viewed as inapproriate (and I hope it is) could the admins look at a warning and/or short ban for FZ please?

Mr. Kappo Connolley has been a storehouse of insults, on this and other entries. A scientist who talks about what he has not even the faintest. Need a modeller for that.

Meanwhile, as to the psuedoscience tag - that has been re-added by loads of people,

All your gang buddies...

including User:Bluemoose (just recently); User:Calton [17]; User:Salsb [18] and User:Theresa knott [19]. The people removing the PS tag are mostly anons... usually 4.225.x

William M. Connolley 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

So what? Since when is scientific merit of a research endeavour measured by the size of the "loads of people" who are willing to make pronouncements about it without being bothered by their own ignorance in the matter? If there is anything pseudoscientific, it is the idea of resolving controversies about scientific merit by taking a majority vote among people who are not even scientifically honest enough to withhold judgement on matters on which they have not informed themselves. Pseudoscientific - as in stating conclusions without any willingness to examine the data.
As for "personal attacks", in my book the kind of disrespectful, prejudicially contemptuous behavior that Connolley and others have engaged in with respect to the Aetherometry article counts as a much more egregious "personal attack" than any honest and explicit name-calling. It is a personal attack on people's time, effort, work, and good name. The mere fact that Connolley and the other "loads" that come to his support have a prejudice against scientific work whose conclusions dissent from those of officially accepted science does not, in my book, entitle them to this kind of contempt and disrespect towards those who do this work. Not even if Wikipedia has no policies against such contempt and disrespect, or even considers them "scientific". FrankZappo 00:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 's obstructionist behavior on this entry and on many others in the non-mainstream science is a matter of archival record. The fact that he has a little coterie of people inside Wikipedia ready to support his antics only makes it all the more regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.208.18 (talkcontribs) 00:19, 14 November 2005

William Connolley should be banned from Wikipedia for life.

Oh and see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=1261677&diff=28311794&oldid=28308747 these alterations to the comments above. Dunc| 17:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have little to respond to the wealth of anonymous comments, or to FrankZappo's latest comments, except to note that the qualities of mind necessary to believe in Aetherometry and the qualities of mind necessary to think that Wikipedia should not, in a dispute between a well-respected scientist and a band of cranks, side with the cranks are remarkably similar. Should you feel compelled to push the issue further, I point out that the very fact of an Aetherometry article - and one that does not label Aetherometry a load of complete and utter crap in the first sentence at that - gives your "field of study" more and more respectful coverage than any other major encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Of course there are thousands of distinguished and highly respected scientists the world over who, despite William M. Connolley's claims to the contrary, would argue that it's hard to find a crankier modern pseudoscientific enterprise than that of the opportunistic band of cranks behind 'global warming'. These scientists don't, as people like William M. Connolley would have us believe, all work for George Bush or the oil companies. They aren't all, like William Connolley, civil servants working for the British government (who seem to have more time to spend endlessly pushing their dubious agendas on Wikipedia than they spend producing any tangible work for their employers - why is that?) and collecting their paychecks for producing politically expedient cash cows. 'Utter crap', they say about the 'global warming' racket - which they argue is nothing more than a hairbrained, computer-modeled manufacture of global warming - a field fueled only by political interests and not by science. So then it would be NPOV (you know what that is, I presume?) and respectful, don't you think Mr. Phil Sandifer?, to either stop plastering the gratuitous "pseudoscience" label (libel) on the Aetherometry entry in wikipedia - or plaster it on the global warming entry as well, to signal that there are legitimate opposing scientific views on the subject.

To quote one of your comrades in this debate, just because you say it is so does not make it so. This is related, I think, to it's not being so. Phil Sandifer 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding An Unblock[edit]

Hey, I need to unblock Caterpillar 36 (talk · contribs). I've done so twice apparently, but he says he still can't get through. Could someone check this out? Karmafist 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you check for autoblocks? --cesarb 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Searching for your name on the Ipblocklist, I found the autoblock still active and removed it. --cesarb 02:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of documenting it, the autoblock was:
  • 21:12, 13 November 2005, Karmafist blocked #57488 (expires 21:12, 14 November 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Caterpillar 36". The reason given for Caterpillar 36's block is: "Sockpuppetry".)
--cesarb 02:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Revert[edit]

No vandalism yet, but user name is problematic. Please consider appropriate actions. --Nlu 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No contributions yet. Possible good-faith attempt to prevent someone else from taking the name—if so, an indef. block is OK anyway. Will do. — Phil Welch 05:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User:FUCK YOU CURBS YOU STUPID FUCKING FUCK BOT![edit]

Should be blocked ASAP. --Nlu 06:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this account name based on vulgarity.--Jondel 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I could only block not delete.--Jondel 06:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User:WHY DO YOU ALWaYS BLOCK my USER NAMES?[edit]

The latest one. Can someone check if it's the same IP? If so, block the IP indefinitely? --Nlu 06:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indefinate blocks are stupid. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Unblocking obvious trolls and vandals is stupid. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Blocking an IP that could change ownership (even static IPs do with changes of ownership, etc.) is stupid. Ral315 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As per Ral315. Lifetime blocks are bad, and people change. I'm all for indefinitely blocking accounts used in an asshole like way, but not IP's. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont' mind indefinite blocks for the right reasons. But usernames like these are only to make a point or vandalize. They should be unambigous like mine ;-p «»Who?¿?meta 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree , user names like these are only to vandalize. They can always log in to a new user name. Its an obsession if we insist on protecting this name. Agree with people do change.--Jondel 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously considering lifting the block on this one? Or any others like it? android79 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not, I dont' see any reason too unless the user requests it be unblocked so they can create a valid username, since any username created under the same IP will be autoblocked. «»Who?¿?meta 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Main Page: Admin needed[edit]

... see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/November 14 and here --Interpretix TALK 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The mistake has been fixed. Rd232 talk 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sufism vandal[edit]

Anonymous IPs (AOL-based, I believe) are creating new pages/replacing pages with contents of Sufism. Is there any good way to stop them? (Hmmm, is the Communism vandal becoming the Sufism vandal?) --Nlu 07:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft page history gone?[edit]

User:Rokeaj moved Microsoft to Microsuck. I moved it back, and now the history of Microsuck only shows Rokeaj's move and 5 deleted edits, and the history of Microsoft only shows my move. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of more edits. Have they now been lost for good? JIP | Talk 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, have you tried clearing your cache maybe? It looks all there to me. The Microsuck redirect should probably be deleted though, huh? MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 08:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Spamming of Admins[edit]

User:200.219.184.81 is evidently having some issues with an Administrator named Mikkalai regarding the "Moldovan language". I am not certain what the problem is (see my talk page for more info) but the user is spamming his/her complain across the talk pages of every admin, in alphabetical order. I left a message with the user pointing out that this is not the way to address the problem. Just wanted other admins to know about this. Thank you. --Alabamaboy 17:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Great, that means I'll be spammed rather soon... android79 17:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC):143.239.7.2 had reverted it. +MATIA 18:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

HTML Tidy temporarily disabled[edit]

From what I've heard on IRC, the HTML tidy somehow deadlocked and caused the whole site to go down. The developers have temporarily disabled it, but as a side effect, it causes some breakage. Be extra careful with the AfD logs. I have added a colored box to the top of the noticeboard in case this message gets too hard to read. --cesarb 22:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I wondered why there were so many pages with funny formating--Hello'from'SPACE 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)/
Speaking of irony... Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
lol, I think I have it fixed now--Hello'from'SPACE 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope. You need a </span></sup></font> at the end, at the least. Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, how about now?--Hello'from'SPACE 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Remove the nowiki tags, and it'll be fine. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
'Doh' nevermind--Hello'from'SPACE 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the cause. Man, I can hardly even read this page. Font size = 0.005... Looks like several dozen users have faulty signatures, and several templates are also acting up. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Check out this![20] WOW!!!hehehe...seriously I hope they get this fixed soon.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 22:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
this one is even worse Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you want to see something ugly? Try this... Titoxd(?!?) 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the important lesson here is that users should be careful to close HTML tags in their signatures; what we're seeing is errors in the markup that were previously hidden, rather than a new error in the parser. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly true. I'm seeing closing tags such as being ignored. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It looks to me like most of the cases where a </tag> is beign ignored, tags were nested incorrectly. Tag a would be opened, then tag b, then a would be closed, then b. Result, at leat one clsoe is ignored as being out of scope. DES (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
That seems to be correct. I fixed a few broken sigs on WP:RFA and the two main problems I saw were not closing font tags, and incorrect nesting. --GraemeL (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I tried to do some cleanup but it is futile. Please be careful with the html in your sigs. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes, just removing a space between and other sig words/numbers fixes it...(posted after 3rd edit conflict...weeee!)Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
My sig does not have html i think and it is affected also --JAranda'' | [[User talk:Aranda56|watz sup]] 01:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Death to colored signatures

  • I think it depends on where they are. You can normally use overlapping tags like <tag>[[<end tag>]], I believe that's breaking down (since it wouldn't generally be valid HTML without tidying). Radiant_>|< 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lots of talk pages have suddenly become very difficult to read. Jonathunder 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

    • My sig right above was made with 4 tildes after I trimmed it down a bit and removed spaces between "sups" and text; I guess it works now, since this is not in tiny text.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The worst problem seems to be unclosed <font> tags; some signatures simply reset the text with a second tag rather than closing the first. Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed something important. When a tag is contained within wikilinks (e.g. the middle link in my signature, [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=#008000>xd</font>]]), it does not break. If the link is contained within the tags (<font color=#008000>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]</font>) it breaks. Titoxd(?!?) 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point! When I fixed my sig, I removed "/font" in three places where is was redundant. It also happened to be in the link text.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks like that version just stops working. Something like <sup><font color=blue>[[TEXT]]</sup><font color=black>, on the other hand, is likely to break everything that comes after it as well. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this tidy thingy, whatever it is exactly, is working again. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Or not. Maybe just this page has been cleaned up. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Not quite—look at this page. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just look for anywhere that jtdirl (talk · contribs) has written his sig. Aaargh my eyes! violet/riga (t) 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This could plausibly be fixed by some added logic to the "change your signature" preferences page. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    The devs are already working on it. Expect interesting changes on what is and what isn't allowed in signatures in the future. --cesarb 23:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Hopefully they will limit the insane sigs some people have. Martin 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The </font> have gone missing in lots of sigs. Vandalism? --hydnjo talk 00:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope, just some wierd tech issues. Should be fixed soon. This reminds me of a recent Arbcom decison concerning sigs as well..--Sean|Black 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It just occured to me, with all the quick 'fixes' everyone is making to their signatures, articles, etc.. isn't everything going to be even more messed up when they turn html code back on? might not a 'sit tight' or 'grin it and bear it' be best, that way everything just goes back to normal when htm comes back?--Hello fromSPACE 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The fixes only make the code correct, so it will work the same with or without tidy. --cesarb 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Except that everyone is going back and editing their old posts to try and hack out any off coding, in the process, this is, in most cases, making the problem worse, and since signatures don't 'fix' retroactivly, it could still be a mess to clean up--Hello fromSPACE 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah ha, you didn't think of that one, now did you--[[User:Hello fromSPACE|'''<font color=blue>Hello</font>'''<small>''''from'''</small><sup>''''<small>SPACE</small>'''</sup><font color=green><sup><span style="background-color: black"><span><sup>]] 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Confusion: I turned off formatting in my signature, so why's it look like that ^ mess up there?--[[User:Hello fromSPACE|'''<font color=blue>Hello</font>'''<small>''''from'''</small><sup>''''<small>SPACE</small>'''</sup><font color=green><sup><span style="background-color: black"><span><sup>]] 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
How can sigs that were translated (compiled?) from ~~~~ weeks ago get messed up retroactively? --hydnjo talk 01:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's the display of the pages which has changed. Obviously, it will affect even pages from the history. --cesarb 01:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
IANADev, but I believe HTML tidy works on parsing stored wikitext for the reader, it doesn't change the wikitext at all. The bad sigs were put down with incorrect HTML, but no-one noticed because HTML tidy made the errors invisible. Now its broken, and all hell is let loose. the wub [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly what I'm finding, little errors that weren't being picked up at the time. Maybe it's time to show folks "how to fish" instead of just feeding them. --hydnjo talk 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


bot fix?[edit]

Can't somebody just write a bot to insert <nowiki> tags onto all affected pages?--Hello fromSPACE 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's a plan then? We give a bot developer's privillages, have it create the tag <nohtml>, which can then be given to <nowiki>-bot, who will in turn, add said tag to all affected pages, all without taking up the valuble time and resources of the people trying to fix tidy-html, quite a plan if I say so myself--Hello fromSPACE 02:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this related?[edit]

To our current problem? 'Parse error: parse error, unexpected $, expecting ')' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 3743' If so, does this mean it's getting worse?--Hello fromSPACE 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It means some of the servers are out of sync with the rest, and have broken code. It has nothing to do with the tidy situation (which was disabled on purpose due to causing other breakage). --cesarb 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
What about my bot idea? Is that feasible?--Hello fromSPACE 01:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The worst affected page?[edit]

Loads of people told Adam1213 to change his sig as it was too big and flashy. Just look at his talk page now! Ironic that he has a babel thing on his userpage saying he knows HTML... the wub [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 01:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Even more ironic, that your signature has been defunct for the last 6 or so edits you've made--Hello'from'SPACE 01:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Meh, should be fixed now. Don't know why it broke, was working fine earlier. Way to make me look stupid, bloody MediaWiki >:-( the wub "?!" 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I had the same problem. All I have was sup tags they were working fine 3 hours ago and suddenly they broke, even though they're inside my brackets and carefully closed. They shouldn't have used HTML tidy in the first place if they knew it was creating faulty coding. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How to check if your signature is busted[edit]

Go to your preferences if you're using the "Raw signatures" method, and then you'll get an "Invalid HTML" warning if you need to fix something. Titoxd(?!?) 01:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just assumed this was from the tidy html being shut-off, since I dont' have any "invalid html" tags in my sig. (btw i'm cheating on this sig) «»Who?¿?meta 01:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a persuasive reason why we allow HTML into signatures? I mean, I understand that we all love our customized shiny sigs, but it seems like, if this feature is causing any problems at all, which it clearly is, it's best abandoned as serving no useful purpose. Phil Sandifer 01:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It does serve a useful purpose, it's just that in addition to tidy html being offed, the </sup> tag is no longer reckognized, where as the <sup> tag still works, and other wonderful little bugs of that sort--Hello'from'SPACE 01:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The sig is not causing an issue, all tags are messed up, I had to remove regular formatting "div" and {{CURRENTTIME}} from my talk page because of the tidy html prob, so it's clearly more than just html in sigs. «»Who?¿?meta 01:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not that they're not recognized anymore, they're just nested improperly, which renders them useless now that the MediaWiki maid quit the job. Titoxd(?!?) 01:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems that it's not just HTML sigs that are affected... Physchim62 [[User_talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot fix, phase II[edit]

So, does anyone actually have any ideas how to write a <nowiki> bot, to insert <nowiki> tags into all affected articles/talk pages?--Hello'from'SPACE 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, yea that's a lot of pages for a prob that will probably be fixed by the devs shortly anyhoo. «»Who?¿?meta 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, but it's not a good idea, since doing that will shatter all the intra-wiki links in the page, not just the HTML/CSS formatting. Titoxd(?!?) 01:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure? If so, could somebody write a new <nowiki> tag, for the <nowiki>-bot? how about <nohtml>?--Hello'from'SPACE 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That would require developer access to MediaWiki, and the devs will more likely fix HTML Tidy than code an entire new feature for the software. Titoxd(?!?) 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
What if they wrote a bot to do it for them?--Hello fromSPACE 02:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You need a human to program the program... Titoxd(?!?) 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Not if you write a program, to program the program, to write a program--Hello fromSPACE 02:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not write a "tidy HTML" bot instead. It's just a software library so one should be eable to load it into a bot and have it simply fix the broken HTML in the article source. Using the same library as the server does would (hopefully) avoid any nasty suprices when the server side fixing was re-eneabled. That is if you are going to write a bot to fix this temporary problem in the first place. --Sherool (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a site notice is in order to tell people they may see some messed up text? Broken S 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing a few hours ago. Titoxd(?!?) 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I was going to, but it's on the RC page. «»Who?¿?meta 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I already put it on the RC page. So are you thinking about putting it on the main page too? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I wasn't. I think it's an important notice, and it might effect readers, but I think it would only detract from the mainpage. RC should be enough, so the editors aren't freaking out so much. «»Who?¿?meta 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I meant MediaWiki:Sitenotice, but if it's fixed never mind. Broken S
Is HTML Tidy still off, though? I think it's back on again. encephalon 03:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I already put one on the help desk and village pump hours ago. User:Radiant! - okay, sigs don't work the way you expect them to. Use 'Raw Signatures' (config option) to prevent this. Radiant_>|< 10:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    I asked the developers, and they said that both wiki markup and html markup are no longer allowed on non-raw signatures. If you want to use both, you need to use raw signatures (which do not automatically link to the user page). --cesarb 15:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

New page[edit]

Since "my signature is broken how do I fix it please" is fast becoming a new FAQ, I created a page to try to help: Wikipedia:How to fix your signature. If there's any situation it doesn't cover, please add it to the list. --cesarb 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems with tables?[edit]

  • Did the problems with HTML tidyup affect tables. A user on the help desk has brought to my attention the problems on the Economy of Iraq page. Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to fix the problem but I would be grateful if someone could advise whether it is related to the problems we had yesterday or not. (Unsigned question by User:Capitalistroadster)
    • It shouldn't have affected tables, and that particular problem was just some vandalism which I have now reverted. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Images in signatures[edit]

Now that the devs have implemented code that forces a correct signature, it would be possible to also ask them to forbid certain tags in signatures - in particular, images. What do people think about allowing images in signatures? (other possibilities include the 'big' tag and line breaks, since they're rather annoying) Radiant_>|< 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, yes, and yes. android79 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Small images are ok, I think. But there should be limits on size - some people really don't know when to stop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they should be discouraged in the same way that template transclusion is. They always seem to slow down page loading for me. --Bob Mellish 17:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be thrilled to death to get rid of all three (images, the 'big' tag, and line breaks). There's no good reason for any of them. Images in particular suck up valuable resources, particularly since the image server has been slow of late. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Images are fine. Let's get our servers up to snuff instead. Kim Bruning 18:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Images (and long sigs in general) are the tools of Satan. Well maybe not but they are serve absolutely no purpose, the only thing they can do is slow down servers and make the editing page unreadable. Martin 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I generally tend to dislike technical solutions that limit user creativity and self-expression. Unless the devs say sig images are consuming a significant amount of resources, I would be opposed to eliminating them. The "big" tag is fairly harmless and frequently identifies user who feel so insecure or so self-important that they need a large sig. Frankly, I think having that information more than makes up for any annoyance that it causes. I can't recall ever having noticed a line break in a sig, so I don't know how I feel about that. Generally though, if you really feel someone's sig is a problem, I think it is better to talk to people about their flamboyant behavior than simply outlaw all sigs of X type. Dragons flight 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have at least once seen a sig that crashed my browser because of the image - entirely accidentally, as far as I can tell. I understand the desire for user creativity and self-expression, but Wikipedia is not a message board - it's a serious project. Go self-express on LiveJournal. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What about a middle route? Don't ban anything (for now), but let those who are concerned by sigs go somewhere and develop some kind of good-practice guidelines (WP:SIGS?). This would at least flag up to new users the types of signs that are considered poor form by some users, what their concerns might be, technical considerations, and some 'good practice' examples. People with problamatic sigs could be pointed towards it, avoiding long explainations on case by case basis, and without instruction creep. --Doc ask? 18:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Serious project indeed. --cesarb 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. We only have around 50 pages of self-indulgent joking. That's pretty serious, all things considered. Phil Sandifer 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support this. There are plenty of ways to be creative with colour tags and Unicode symbols. Both because of performance reasons, and because of the potential of annoyance (most are unproblematic, but recently nationalist trolls found that they could get each other's goat by including flags in their sigs). But it is not the most urgent of problems in my book. Usually, it should be enough if several people tell someone their sig is considered annoying (doesn't hold for trolls of course). dab () 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If we were going to have rules for banning certain things in sigs, we'd have to agree on the rules first. Guidelines (WP:SIG?) are a first step that will be useful whether we go to banning or not. Rd232 talk 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've turned it into a serious proposal at Wikipedia:Signatures should not contain images. Please discuss there. Radiant_>|< 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"nigga stole my bike", etc[edit]

As we know, there has been a vandal that has been vandalizing articles with "nigga stole my bike" with a bot. I do not know if this will help, but "nigga stole my bike" is actually a YTMND fad. The vandal also seems to have hit the Homestar Runner wiki - just look at their block log! --Ixfd64 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Two revisions removed from Swan Hill, Victoria[edit]

A request was made on the Helpdesk-l mailing list for two revisions [21] [22] to be removed from the history, because of the nature of the added text. Can an administrator handle this please? Gerrit CUTEDH 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Done! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Shazza 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with my sig[edit]

Lat night, when html tidy was switched off, my sig was fine. This morning it's doing this Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] Whats wrong? If you check the code you'll see it's replaced the one of the double square brackes with &#124 ; Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SIGHELP. Hopefully the information in that'll do you some good. --Blackcap |