Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive30

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

Noticeboard archives

Curps Bot[edit]

This is to get more input on Curps's bot that unilaterally has his block powers and makes use of them to police usernames as well as page moves and other stuff (which curps refuses to elaborate on). His bot is unauthorized and uses blocking powers which is discourged in the strongest terms at WP:BOT. I have requested to Curps on his talk page that he turn off this bot until this can be clarified. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For Curps to switch off the bots just on your request due to unfounded doubts would cause tremendous gross disruption to Wikipedia just to make a point. It would be held up in years to come as the perfect example of why process doesn't come before product - David Gerard 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of keeping his block/move bot running as is. It's a useful tool for keeping WoW-style vandalism at a minimum, and it has saved me a ton of work. In 99% of the cases where I'm thinking of doing a {{UsernameBlock}}, I find that Curps has already blocked. In order to do this, he needs certain admin powers. The first alternative that comes to mind would be to let a designated bot account do all of the work, but that requires giving it the necessary admin powers. All of this has been discussed before, you may want to check the archives. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the earliest version of this discussion (that I'm aware of) can be found here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because he hasn't done something utterly stupid and irresponsible yet doesn't mean he should be allowed to get away with doing whatever he wants including running an unauthorized bot that can block editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words, Wikipedia:Process is Important. Digging through the archives is not, in my opinion, a very pleasant experience, and while I have no qualms about Curp's good faith or excellent contributions, it seems to me that a page describing what exactly the bot does would be in order. (I couldn't find it on his user page, at least) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it would render the bot useless. There are at least a few vandals that read our discussion pages, and if the inner workings of the bot are given, then they can just go around it. That is the entire reason why he doesn't want to give out the details. Perhaps if he were assured secrecy by only one or two administrators (probably AllyUnion and someone else from WP:BOT, he would give the details. And by the way, BlockBot is the best thing to Wikipedia since edit summaries. Don't block it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have done that, I have guaranteed secrecy and his response (on his talk page) was pretty much tough shit, I don't have to tell you anything about my bot which is one of the major reasons why he shouldn't be allowed to run a bot that blocks editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is that response on my talk page. Others can judge if you have correctly characterized it in the description you gave above. -- Curps 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Assume bad faith. As I noted on WP:RFAr, if his bots had done anything bad at all the devs would have had his arse and his bots' arse out of here at truly remarkable speed. You've been trying to raise unfounded doubts about his work at WP:RFAr, and now on this page as well.
Do you have any basis for trying to trash Curps' good name in this manner? What has he actually done? If you can't produce some actual evidence of wrongdoing, perhaps not trashtalking someone would be a good option - David Gerard 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The only things I have said he has done is run a bot with no authorization and no oversight to make use of his blocking ability and he repeatedly has refused to clarify even privately what his bot does. I don't think I need evidence to prove that he's running a bot that he says he's running. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Curp's bots currently make up a critical part of our anti vandalism defences. There is no way they can be removed at this time.Geni 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
We got along fine before the bot we can do so without it and scare tactics are a slippery slope when justifying anything. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No we didn't. There was a form of vandalism that hit us just bofore the bot came on line that we had no useful responce to.Geni 21:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree with David Gerard. If I recall correctly, the matter has been discussed on WP:AN or WP:AN/I before. In any case, I support the continued use of this bot. It has caught inappropriate user names and page moves with astonishing speed. I stronlgy encourage continued use of this bot in keeping Wikipedia clean. Keep up the good work. — Knowledge Seeker 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do we do if, say, the machine Curp's bot runs on crashes? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we block people by ourselves. Curps's bot is an extremely valuable vandal fighting tool, and I am completely in support of it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well according to Geni, there is "no way" we could do the blocking ourselves. I think that if part of the operations are "critical", then it's fair to point out that a critical part of site operation is a single point of failure that is not under Wikipedia's control. --Tabor 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
We could probably get away with it for a short time because vandles with the abilty to launch the really nasty attacks would not relise that the bot had gone offline. We do have some server side options that could be used in an emergancy however they are very dissruptive and are emergancy use only.Geni 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Zoe, it's called Special:blockip. There's no reason why the 800 or so admins can't do the same job that one bot does. It would just mean that you'd actually have to work to take care of username violations and page move vandals rather than letting a bot do the work. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't have 800 active admins. We have 300. At most.Geni 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that the cabal's consensus is to let Curps get away with whatever the fuck he wants so be it then. Congratulations yet again reason and sanity have been usurped by wikipoliticking. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer, that's not the way to go about convincing people that Curp's bot should be licensed. Part of the argument is security by obscurity, I think there is quite a bit an argument against it. Additionally, if page move throttling really is that important, I may want to consider dropping my Annotation project and working on something for that. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Jtkiefer, that response is inappropriate and unlikely to convince anyone of your argument's merits. Instead of believing that everyone else is deluded and that you are the only one with reason and sanity, please consider the possibility that your assessment might be mistaken. — Knowledge Seeker 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, is there anything wrong with the bot whatsoever? Jtkiefer, it seems to me you are politicking here, against this bot, to preserve some kind of useless process. If Curps actually does anything wrong, then he won't "get away with it" but, certainly he will until then. Now what's this about "There's no reason why the 800 or so admins can't do the same job that one bot does"? That's absurd, I'll give you one good reason: Encyclopedia. This isn't a playground where we fight vandals, and your suggestion that we spend more time doing so, and less time on the encyclopedia, because of some policy, is just silly. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's any indication that the vandals are reading these pages, here's what's going on in the block log:

  1. 15:32, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:Those guys at WPAN are gonna roast curp's balls (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  2. 15:31, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:Curp s you fucking unauthorized fuck bot! (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  3. 15:24, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:Curps bot has anal sex with tator tots with an unauthorized bot (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  4. 15:21, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:That fucking fuck bot gave his bot admin powers, curps (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  5. 15:19, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:What kind of a flightless bird gives a bot admin powers? (curps) (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  6. 15:18, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:What kind of an emu gives a bot admin powers? (curps) (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  7. 15:18, 11 February 2006 Titoxd blocked "User:What kind of a flightless bird gives a bot admin powers? (curps) (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})

So, there is a considerable reason for not giving out the details of the blocking bot. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to Curps running that bot. However, as I have said before, I'd like to see more descriptive block summaries. Summaries like "user..." are pretty meaningless. --Ixfd64 20:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL, ya, Curps' bot has also blocked a shit load of World of Warcraft fans. Reverend Abramovich 07:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I would like to point that, when doing potentially controversial actions, it is a good idea to announce you did so on one of the noticeboards, so other people can check and potentially revert. Well, Curps's bot does exactly that: every time it blocks someone for excessive page moves, it announces it immediately on the noticeboard. If the block was a mistake, it's reverted very quickly; I only recall seeing that happen once. --cesarb 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


All of the above where blocked by the Curps block bot for one or two instances of vandalism. Each of which I just had to unblock. These are not the first set of mistakes (see his talk page) and it won't be the last and I find it disgusting that he's getting away with not only violating policy but running a bot that by design ends up biting newbies without oversight and without regard and gets away with it on top of that just because he has the right people supporting him (see the list of folllowers of curps who have signed their above posts). JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that's the bot? AFAIK, the bot is designed to block mass page moves, and possibly some offensive usernames (Curps always use the highly cryptic block reason "user.." for these; I don't know if it's his bot or a manually activated quick-block script). I don't think the bot is programmed to block for vandalism. --cesarb 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if Curps would get off his high horse and actually tell other admins (who by definition are trusted by the community) a little more about the workings of his bot we'd know for sure but since he probably wouldn't even tell Jimbo how his bot worked I can't tell you for sure but considering the pattern it sure looks like it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, how about you get off your high horse and do some research before flinging accusations. The burden of proof if is on you, not Curps. Also, seeing that you have just found it approprate to unblock penis image vandals that were clearly sockpuppets of the same person, I feel safe saying I wouldn't trust you with the script of my bot either. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:48, Feb. 12, 2006
Somebody who vandalises an article with "curps is my freind" probably isn't a first-time vandal. And yes, how can you be sure it was the bot and not Curps himself? I do think he needs to use more descriptive block reasons, but other than that, the bot does wonderful work. We all screw up occasionally without scrupulous oversight. Hermione1980 21:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't read the vandalism but no matter what it said it's wayyy against blocking policy to block after only 1 or 2 instances of vandalism unless they're making personal or legal threats or doing something of that sort so add misuse if not entirely ignoring blocking policy to my list of issues with the bot. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And you're sure it's the bot and not Curps himself how? Hermione1980 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said before I'm not sure and I can't be sure since Curps won't share how his omnipotent bot works but the blocking pattern of blocking editors with one or two instances of vandalism and only a few editors fits very well into what a reasonable bot pattern would be. Bot or not is still a cursory matter though since either way it's a policy violation and it shows the same above the law attitude. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking closer at them, the last one "Hellonwhls" ("Hell on wheels", obviously) seems to have been manually blocked as a probable sockpuppet of you-know-who. Overriding that indefinite block, as you did, was probably not appropriate. --cesarb 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when did when in doubt don't block become when in doubt block. It would have been a simple matter to keep an eye on it especially since it isn't a cut and dry username violation. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
We already had that discussion before on the noticeboards. While it would be good to not have to block these accounts, leaving them unblocked meant we had a huge amount of Willy sleeper accounts, which would days later be used for massive page move vandalism. When one was blocked, the vandal simply switched to the next one. Blocking them on creation caused a big drop on that annoying form of vandalism. That, combined with Curps's quick block bot, enabled us to stop fighting fires and gave us more time to do more useful things. For instance, writing a encyclopedia. --cesarb 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(post-ec) Jtkiefer, I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish here, but it looks like you're hunting for things against Curps. If you think there's a problem with his bot, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric (asking somebody to "get off his high horse" comes across as needlessly confrontational, imho) and discuss things reasonably. Hermione1980 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The first item on that list Leamme_Alone (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is the North Carolina vandal; the person named in his edit is a real kid who lives in that county, and who he's been harassing for a while. I strongly suggest re-blocking indefinitely. I don't want to wheel-war so I won't do it. Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
--Changed my mind; re-blocked indefinitely. This kid has often used his aged accounts for page move vandalism any time he can get them to survive the Curps bot. Antandrus (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


The attitude issue I'm talking about can be found in the following quote:

I realize an automated block bot can be dangerous, but this is an emergency. I will run it under supervision if possible, but will keep on running it even when I'm not here. Please note this is not a request to run such a bot; I am already running it and will continue to do so and am just letting everyone know. The bot is running under my account (admin). I hope no admin is misguided enough to think of blocking me for whatever reason; if so, I will unblock myself. Did I mention that this was an emergency? -- Curps 14:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


The above is curps stating that he has already started to run his vandal bot without any authorization and will continue to run it. He even states that he'll violate blocking policy and unblock himself if blocked which I have always come to understand was a huge policy violation. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope that "vandal bot" means "a bot to catch vandals. While I'm assuming it does, can you just clarify, Jtkiefer? Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you remember, but we were faced with WoW attacks every other day and had hundreds of page moves to revert back in August. This is an encyclopedia, there's no policy violation if what he's doing is good and by consensus. Please stop distracting us from that encyclopedia. What are you after here? Dmcdevit·t 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
What is he after here? So Jtkiefer (and whoever else) has to WP:AGF for the bot, but others should about Jtkiefer. I suppose that some devs have checked that bot, and if I understood correctly the ArbCom has some knowledge about its inner self. I also suppose that there are people who would like to know how it works and I can guess that Curps perhaps wants it closed source. Have you counted the guesses up to here? As for "security through obscurity" I thought that was doomed before the 1990s. And while it can be Curps choice to have it closed source, he could write a page documenting it. talk to +MATIA 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Curps is acting in bad faith and the bot seems to have solved an enormous problem. The page move vandalism that this bot is meant to stop happened before I got very involved with Wikipedia, but I would imagine that it would have been a nightmare. His intention to unblock the bot is somewhat strange because if there is a legitimate problem, it should be stopped by whoever spots it first. Perhaps he meant if it was blocked just because it did not have approval. Anyway, it seems to be working to most people's satisfaction. It would be helpful if the bot was explained without giving away any technical secrets. However, I think that the approach taken was too confrontational and withholding information about the bot for security reasons is a legitimate action. Also, I think that it is acceptable to bypass formal approval in an emergency, if it is truly in the best interests of the project, but there has been plenty of time to evaluate the bot since it started running. Most people seem to love it, so getting approval should not be a problem. Giving the bot its own account might be good, unless it would allow vandals to figure out how it works by checking the block pattern. -- Kjkolb 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Response[edit]

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy (frozen version as of now):

In general, casual vandals will be warned before being blocked, though warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia or serve an activist agenda. (emphasis mine)

Regarding the accounts you unblocked: Leamme Alone (talk · contribs), as someone has already pointed out, was a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. If a user is entitled to X warnings before being blocked, that's X warnings per user, not X warnings per sockpuppet, expecially if he has created hundreds of sockpuppets over many months as this user has. We are certainly entitled to block his sockpuppets on sight.

Regarding Pumpkin Pants (talk · contribs), he edited Nigeria to change "Nigeria" to "Niggeria". This matches an earlier vandalism edit to Music of Nigeria. Also, this odd phrase was used before by the username vandal who's been targeting Shanel lately:

For more on harassment targeting Shanel, see User talk:Kelly Martin#egregious username vandal. This was a freshly created throwaway account used solely for the vandalism intended to "discredit Wikipedia". Blocking right away is appropriate.

Regarding the accounts:

All of these are throwaway accounts used for shock-image vandalism, targetting articles linked to from the main page in many instances. If someone creates a throwaway account and immediately uses it to commit vandalism (especially egregious vandalism like this), well, they've just thrown it away. Unblocking such accounts is just sterile wheel-warring and or at best WP:POINT.

Regarding Hellonwhls (talk · contribs), this is suggestive of the usual "on wheels" sleeper account. Such accounts are often created with various spelling variations or misspellings. Various admins other than myself also block "on wheels" usernames on sight. It is possible though that this could be a legitimately created username, which is why the block summary invited the user to contact an admin. On the other hand, you blindly cut-and-pasted the same unblock summary here as for the others [1], which indicates you didn't even investigate or examine contributions before unblocking.

Regarding the situation on August 26 2005, we had several page move vandalism episodes of increasing severity in the preceding few days, culminating in this: [2]. After that, there were perhaps 7 or 8 more episodes of high-speed pagemove vandalism on that same day, and a few more on following days. The post I made on that day (which you quote above) was intentionally somewhat assertive, since I wanted to forestall the possibility of someone (such as yourself) blocking the bot on ruleslawyering grounds in the face of a genuine emergency. Since those days, things have calmed down a bit.

I did envision that bots are a temporary solution and the only real long-term solution is to upgrade MediaWiki software. However, for whatever reason, no such software solution has been seen yet. So here we are. -- Curps 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately WoW and hs ilk aren't going away so your bot will be necessary for a long long time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If you agree with that premise, then why are you either trying to shut down the bot, or get information about it that could potentially make it useless? Bratschetalk 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution is to admit on WP:BOT that special, unregistered bots may be permitted from time to time under exceptional circumstances, with consensus among admins. (Or are we relying on WP:IAR here?) Steve Summit (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki software[edit]

Let's not get Curps wrong, I think he still believes that his bot is a temporary fix for what is a software limitation. There may be a related Bugzilla feature request, but someone should be working on it. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Boxes[edit]

I blocked this chap indefinitely because he doesn't seem to have come to Wikipedia with the intention of producing a high quality encyclopedia.

I suggest that his existence may be related to a policy initiative that has tended to promote the idea that templates are not templates when they are placed outside template namespace, although up to now it doesn't seem that he has ventured as far as cloning any templates in userspace, as some have.

Please review this block with a view to modifying it or removing it. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Support block, seems fair. NSLE (T+C) 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Tell me when people start putting this stuff in the help namespace won't you?Geni 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! I checked his history and noticed that he was blocked earlier as a suspected sock of someone else who had done something superficially similar. Well please forget this other chap and review this block on the basis of its merits. I'm by no means confident that it will enjoy universal support, but in my own mind I am certain that we must not permit people to use Wikipedia for purposes other than producing the encyclopedia. That is why we are here and anybody here for any other purposes should just go away and find a web forum or something. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As he seems to have been creating nothing but clones of those userbox template pages, I speedied those as clones of existing pages, and useless pages under What Wikpiedia is not and User page. Please review. --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


According to this edit, the account's puppeteer is God of War (talk · contribs). -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I'd be surprised if it was. What a mess! --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And that is what makes me suspect it isn't. It's too neat if it is.Geni 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It is. I looked - David Gerard 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When is common sense going to rear its head and tell us that this approach isn't working? As we cycle further and further into this, deleting and blocking, deleting and blocking, spewing thousand of words in discussion, will it at some stage be noticed that deleting the boxen has caused more trouble than the boxen? Sweet mother of Thomas Paine, what's the advantage in going down this path?
brenneman{T}{L} 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...as is fighting against deleting the boxen, and fighting against people fighting against deleting them, and so on ad infinitum. There would seem to be no end to this infinite regress short of everybody somehow showing simultaneous common sense and saying "enough is enough", and doing no more fighting either for or against the stupid things. *Dan T.* 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Aaron 100%. The anti-userbox jihad is disrupting the project and distracting people from the task of building an encyclopedia. Decorating your cubicle does not make you a bad worker, and company policy that prohibits cubicle decoration just poisons the workplace. Let's move on already. Time for a hudna. Babajobu 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any great jihad here. A few dozen of the most offensive and divisive userboxes have been deleted. A few trolls and socks are making hay before they get blocked or banned. If it wasn't working, the same few users wouldn't be squeaking so loudly and ineffectually, tumbrils would be rolling down RfC street and Jimbo would be heading for the hills. Film at 11. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not so easy to divine the future of the encyclopedia. A fair argument can be made that whether a given series of interactions between admins and editors is good or bad can really only be seen with hindsight. Certainly, there are quite a few well-respected users, neither trolls nor socks, who seem to be unhappy with the high-handedness of certain administrators. And the encyclopedia is worse for them having left. If the userbox train-wreck indeed contributed to those users leaving, it's my personal opinion that we've paid a very high price and bought nothing more than a little smug self-satisfaction at having blocked some trolls and socks.
That seems like a stupid price to pay, if what you're interested in is not self-aggrandizement, and is instead building an encyclopedia. Nandesuka 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As the example of the German Wikipedia shows, the project will not collapse if we ban userboxes outright. And nobody is proposing anything on even remotely the same scale. But we should not let ourselves get bullied by a vocal minority (it's only about a dozen users who try to push our buttons) into keeping every single last userbox that somebody dreams up, no matter how insulting, divisive, or redundant it may be, just because they moan and whine as soon as even one of their boxes gets deleted. It's clear that some userboxes are beneficial, especially those that identify users by skills and interests; some userboxes are pointless and silly, but mostly harmless if they can be tamed (e.g., we don't really need separate userboxes for every single favorite color or food item; a single box saying "This user's favorite color/food is $1" would do); and then there are those that are unhelpful, rude, or insulting. We have to bear in mind that it may not be in our best interest to bend over backwards just to keep the userbox moaners happy; we also have to ask ourselves, do we fail to attract potential contributors due to the proliferation of userboxes? I don't have an answer, obviously, but in my experience there are segments of the online population (highly skilled professionals, for example) who will not go near a blog or social networking site, because they perceive those as a waste of time. By allowing userboxes which express views on controversial topics or which actively disparage, I'm afraid we're creating the impression that all sorts of partisanship and factionalism are condoned on Wikipedia. It would be a shame if we failed to be an inclusive environment and failed to attract highly qualified contributors, by indulging a minority who wants to keep creating userboxes on controversial issues that have no bearing on one's existence as a Wikipedian. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that this totally fails to adress the concerns raised is worrying. I'm not advocating boxes like "Jews did the WTC", and by continuing to talk about about support for deleting those userboxes the minority of admins who are deleting a much broader range of user boxes are tacitly admitting defeat.
  • Unless there is some incredible emergancy that hasn't been communicated to the world at large, speedy deleting boxes like "This user advocates immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq" is far more divisive than the box itself. This is a total no-brainer: We don't feed trolls. More to the point, we shouldn't be using bully-boy tactics to convert people into trolls. Bob will not strike us dead if we don't rush and out kill every potentially bad userbox by next Tuesday.
  • This looks more like high-school mentality muscle flexing than it does appropiate use of admin powers: "We'll show those smart-arse box makers!" There appears to be a clear consensus among admins, and a directive from Jimbo himself, not to run around deleting things. I've yet to hear compelling arguments as to why these deletions must happen now and in this way.
brenneman{T}{L} 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to what's going on here. You seem to think there is a major problem. I don't agree. There is a small group of users who will push all our buttons in order to stop admins from ever going near a userbox. They are starting to sound shrill because they're not succeeding. The problems you see are exaggerated, deliberately blown out of proportion by an astroturfing campaign. You seem to agree that this doesn't mean that all userboxes are off limits, given the particularly egregious example you mention. So, to me, it's mostly a question of where we draw the line. I think we don't need to tolerate userboxes that do nothing but disparage and divide. They are already against policy. We don't have to stop doing what we would do for other kinds of policy violations, just for fear the userbox moaners might complain. Of course they will, just like everyone who gets blocked for 3RR will say that the last edit was not technically a revert. In those cases we just move on and let the moaners moan. Why can't we do that here? --68.175.31.24 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're creating the impression that all sorts of partisanship and factionalism are condoned on Wikipedia. Much like speedily deleting userboxes that a consensus wanted to keep? "If you're not with us, the terrorists win." --Kbdank71 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kate's tool broken?[edit]

It seems to me that Kate's tool is not showing updated edit counts, or is it because of today's server problems? --Ragib 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Interiot's Tool, the current lag time for the server is nearly 8 hours; any edits in the past 8 hours wouldn't be reflected on either Kate's Tool or Interiot's Tool. However, you can always use this, a Java-based local tool that doesn't depend on the server. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've written a toolserver FAQ/introduction to answer this and other frequently asked questions. --Interiot 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that because of the downtime last night? It was only about a couple of seconds a few days ago. enochlau (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird[edit]

According to the 2004 Multipurpose Hardware Order, the switch to the new equipment was completed by Feb 13, 2004. Weird how exactly two years later one of the servers breaks downs. Just thought it was a coincidence. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what warranty they were under :) enochlau (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixing (apparent) copy and paste move[edit]

Can a sysop help to merge the edit histories of Nanyang Technological University and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore? The latter used to be the main article until someone created the former with the edit summary of "Move page" and made the main article a redirect, which seems like a copy-and-paste move. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Evil saltine 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to report this vandal[edit]

IP address 202.7.183.131 has been used for vandalism after two final warnings. I have documented three additional incidents of vandalism on the IP address' talk page, but none have been in the past few hours, so I was not sure what page to use to report it. Could the vandalism reporting instructions be clarified? Thanks! Steve Casburn 06:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV. NSLE (T+C) 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I had looked at that page, and did not post there because the page said I should not if: "They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours) since the last warning (test3 or test4)". The IP address had vandalized since the last test4 warning, but had not vandalized in the past 24 hours. What would I do in that case? Steve Casburn 07:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
If they haven't vandalized recently, don't worry about it. It doesn't look like a static IP, so there's no point in blocking anyway. Chick Bowen 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucky 6.9 just packed up and went home[edit]

I just watched as Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) deleted his user and talk pages, and apparently decided to leave the project. It would seem that an exchange with Brainhell (talk · contribs) was the straw that broke his particular camel's back. – ClockworkSoul 06:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's awful. Either Brainhell is particularly clueless, or he was trolling. The net effect seems to have been the same: he kept needling Lucky 6.9 and rubbing an apparent misunderstanding in his face, and he was openly on a relentless him-or-me quest.[3] I don't yet understand why he was unblocked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Very bad news. Lucky 6.9 is one of the most competent admins we have. Losing him can't possibly be good for Wikipedia.--Alhutch 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I may be missing some pieces, but the "straw" [4] was Brainhell's unblocking [5], I think. Brainhell engaged in some serious name-calling, terming Lucky 6.9 a vandal (and sticking to it, repeatedly), saying that his personality was warped by power, and continuing to press his complaint despite offers by Lucky 6.9 to unblock and let the matter drop.[6] At first blush, I find Kelly Martin's claim that she "could find no reason for Lucky6.9's original accusations of personal attack." questionable. Demi T/C 07:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
How sad. Lucky was one of our best administrators and contributors. Brainhell continually harassed Lucky for following the speedy deletion guidelines. I wish that consensus had been sought (and more research done, I guess) before the situation degenerated to this; unfortunately, it looks like that opportunity is up. —bbatsell ¿? 07:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition to today, Lucky 6.9 has left wikipedia on at least the following occasions:
  • Feb 9th 2006 [7]
  • Sep 14th 2004 [8]
  • Aug 3rd 2004 [9]
  • Jul 22nd 2004 [10]
  • May 22nd 2004 [11]
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise, Lucky's back. --Conti| 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
He is? Did you look at the contributions? —bbatsell ¿? 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was involved in this in that I discussed it with Kelly Martin on IRC last night (we were unable to find the personal attack to which Lucky referred in his first post to Brainhell). I thought the indefinite block of Brainhell was a bit much, but for the record, Brainhell's behavior has been abominable, and he has been needling Lucky, and refusing to let the incident go in spite of at least one apology from Lucky ([12]). I don't know if we can get Lucky to return, but since Lucky and Brainhell seem to have completely different interests, it would seem possible that they could both be involved in the project and leave each other alone. Ever the optimist, Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...we were unable to find the personal attack...
Did you ask Lucky? --Duk 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like some of the exchanges took place by email. We don't know if a stronger personal attack was in an email. If there was I'm not saying that that would be a reason to impose a harsh block, just pointing out that we may not be seeing the full picture. Be that as it may, it seems that at the heart of the matter was a simple, easy-to-make mistake, for which Lucky 6.9 apologized. Brainhell on the other hand would not let the matter drop, kept pushing for Lucky to be desysopped, kept rubbing salt in the wounds with his statements on his user page, etc. It's this incessant taunting that seems to have driven Lucky off, and Brainhell needs to be told that this has to stop now and should have stopped a long time ago. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds a little like harassment to me. – ClockworkSoul 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One has to wonder if Kelly Martin even bothered to ask Lucky 6.9 about the situation, or if she just arbitrarily removed the block without discussing it with the blocking admin. Such an action would be completely inappropriate, but I don't want to dig through the deleted Talk pages to try to find out. Kelly, could you enlighten us? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon Bot[edit]

The anon user 172.168.232.130 (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (see contributions). I can't find any mention of this IP on WP:BOT. The bot doesn't seem to be doing anything wrong (substing message templates mostly) but surely there needs to be some info somewhere on it? Are bots allowed to edit anonymously? Raven4x4x 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking it. WP:BP#Bots NSLE (T+C) 08:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't notice: in the edit summaries of the contribs is a link to User:Freakofnurture. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was a better way of finding it than my laborious detective work! (slaps forehead). Strangely, WP:BOT doesn't seem to list User:Catapult or anything by User:Freakofnurture, although he once commented there so he knows it exists. moink 10:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that they are using one of the rapid edit programs, but I doubt it. It seems to be doing good work; perhaps someone should leave a note explaining how to have a bot approved. It must be a regular contributor, as what anon shows up and starts running a bot to subst: user talk templates? Essjay TalkContact 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Something odd is going on... User:Mathbot is also editing as an anon (see [13], and I checked that clicking on the appropriate place in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old causes such an edit). Near the same time, I got "kicked off", i.e. randomly became an IP address although just before that I was logged in. Maybe there was a short-lived system problem that turned some of us, including these bots, into anons? And since they're bots, they can't figure it out and log themselves back in. moink 10:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it may be a server problem. Each time I've left Wikipedia for over 10 minutes over the past three hours and come back to check my watchlist (bookmarked), I have no watchlist - then I realise I'm not logged in? NSLE (T+C) 10:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
See also can't stay logged in at the VP. Lupo 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have found the likely bot: User:Catapult leaves identical edit summaries. Contributions: [14]. Catapult stopped editing the same minute the "anon bot" started. moink 10:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the block going to affect User:Catapult and/or User:Freakofnurture if they try to log back in? moink 10:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I was having the same problem staying logged in; my guess is, those were the warning signs of what became the server failure that left us offline for the last several hours. Essjay TalkContact 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, yes, the anonymous edits were, in fact user:catapult signed out. I have no idea how or why it became signed out, but I can only assume that it has something to do with the database problems that have been occuring. However, I have previously read that it is common for this to happen (something like 1 in 1000 bot edits being performed anonymously due to cookie loss) and that is why I include a link to my username in all of the bot's edit summaries. I will unblock the IP now as it is AOL dialup (dynamically assigned at every disconnect/reconnect). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:50, Feb. 13, 2006

Well, I can't see anyone's name in the edit summaries, in either the contributions list or the diffs. I think it's too long to display fully, all I get is "subst'ing user message templates, other misc. cleanup, no new message...". That's why I didn't know who it was. Raven4x4x 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Click on the ellipsis (...) and it takes you to FreakOfNature's user page. --M@thwiz2020 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, cool, now I see. Thanks. Raven4x4x 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no excuse for a bot editing while logged out. OrphanBot has no trouble staying logged in, and just as a safety precaution, it checks while getting a page to edit to make sure it's still logged in. --Carnildo 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
However people were being logged out due to database errors. I was logged out today inbetween edits. I think it should be forgiven since its not exactly their fault. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot's managed 30,000+ edits (including 1,200 today) without ever editing while logged out. Pearle (which uses the same codebase) has managed 89,000+ edits without, to the best of my knowlege, ever editing while logged out. The code's very simple: when checking a page out to make an edit, make sure you're still logged in. If you're not, don't make the edit. If you get logged out before posting the edit, Wikipedia will make sure the edit doesn't go through. --Carnildo 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mathwiz2020#anon bot? and User talk:Freakofnurture#Blanking user talk page. --M@thwiz2020 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - I've solved this problem. --M@thwiz2020 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion Alice Childress[edit]

The page Alice Childress was improperty listed for AfD deletion, and the nominator has subsequently changed his/her vote to keep. Is there any way the AfD can be closed a bit early? It seems silly to finish the listing only to have the AfD then closed.

see Alice Childress and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Childress

Thanks, --Hansnesse 08:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy kept as a withdrawn nomination. --bainer (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain what you meant by "improperly listed"? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume Hansnesse meant that {{afd2}} was never used, as you can see here. Chick Bowen 21:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The usual meaning is that either the nomination page was malformed or it was never listed on the logs. Looking at the Whatlinkshere output, I cannot find any link from a AfD log, so it's probably what was meant. --cesarb 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipidia.org?[edit]

User:CDA noted that an anon editor added a link on Devil Anse Hatfield (you have to go back in the history, I've removed it) to http://wikipidia.org (thats PIDIA not PEDIA). It looks just like a domain name clearinghouse site, but figured I'd bring it up here in case its a bad faith attempt to leech traffic from wikipedia. I don't think the anon was acting in bad faith, I think they were just a poor speller...since they mispelled other words in the link. ;) --Syrthiss 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I ran a couple searches to see if there was a pattern and I think not, though it is a common typo and is out there. I also learned that Wikipedia in Chinook seems to be called Wikipida. Chick Bowen 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed. Freestylefrappe is desysoped with immediate entitlement to reapply for adminship whenever he desires. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the following message, I have deleted his user and user talk pages:
"Delete my user and talk pages. freestylefrappe 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)" from User talk:Johnleemk. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Since talk pages shouldn't be deleted, I undeleted it and blanked it—hope that's all right. — Knowledge Seeker 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I support the undeletion, I believe the page should remain with a searchable history. Blanked is fine, of course. - CHAIRBOY () 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist and Template:Kfwelcome[edit]

Karmafist is using his own template(s) to welcome users. Normally probably not a big deal but this one asks the new users to sign a petition of his and points them to his own User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies. I just don't think it's right to drag new editors into ongoing battles and ask them to provide input to a policy proposal they have neither the context nor the experience to have any real knowledge of. If I'm not mistaken there's Template:Kwelcome, Template:Kfwelcome and Template:Kawelcome also.

New users should start out with as clean a slate as possible and make their own judgements. This is just wrong. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue about it. If e wants to promote some petition by hawking it to new users, let em. If the idea is a bad one, it'll be clear to new users as much as anyone else. Ignoring it is the best way to handle this. 134.10.12.35 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)
Disagree, how will it be clear to new users? He has no right to sell anything to new users and welcome templates shouldn't be a new battle ground. Rx StrangeLove 06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no policy about what editors can communicate to other editors (as opposed to how, etc). However, as a matter of ethics, I think this highly inappropriate, especially given the context (welcoming new users, which though informal, many new users may mistake as formal). --bainer (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There's not policy about lots of things that are just "bad". Introducing new editors to Wikipedia by shoving wiki-socio-political junk in their face is just poor form. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that his welcome template is in the Template: namespace, instead of in his namespace, so he doesn't own the template. If you think the link to his philosophies page is inappropriate, why not remove it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two links at issue. Rx StrangeLove 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically I think that these templates violate WP:BITE. We should not expect new users to immediatley know everything about Wikipedia and its customs, and I think this extends to asking them to get involved in wikipolitical debates. I think linking to petitions and controversial statements in welcome messages is an abuse of the role of welcomer. The Land 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I take no issue with karmafist's manifesto in and of itself, nor do I oppose, on principle, the creation of a boilerplate message in his own userspace linking to the manifesto. I do, however, find it inappropriate for him to use such a message to welcome new users. Thus I feel that he should keep his "hey, come check out my manifesto" message completely separate from his "hey, welcome to wikipedia" message and refrain from advertising the manifesto on the talk pages of user accounts younger than say, one month. His current methods are likely to confuse new users and damage the credibility of his manifesto, much as meatpuppets damage the credibility of an AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:20, Feb. 14, 2006

Strong agree here. We can't ban him from doing this (only Jimbo can, and I doubt he'll bother). That doesn't change the fact that it's terribly bad form to involve people in wikipolitics when we should be going back to the era when, you know, the article namespace mattered. Let newbies cut their teeth editing articles, and allow them to get stuck debating policy once they're admins (hehe, this calls to mind a corollary of the Peter Principle -- most of the work in an organisation is performed by those at the lowest levels in the hierarchy). And if Karmafist wants to use a boilerplate welcome message to advertise his brand of wikipoliticking, he can create it in his userspace. Template space is for stuff a large number of people will want to use. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I have been reading up on this incident as I work to gain experience, and I'd like to add a strong agree as outlined by Johnleemk. User-space-as-bully-pulpit is one thing; pretty much anything designed to incite should be kept out of template space. RadioKirk talk to me 14:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The message with its two personal opinion links do seem somehow wrong to me. The manifesto in itself is choc full of bad faith, and Wikipedia is represented as (as Karmafist undoubtedly genuinely believes it to be) a place where the bulk of decisions are made by coteries of partisan friends who show high persistence in shouting matches and edit wars. This is newbie biting, it seeks to poison the mind of the new user and encourage suspicion and antagonism of which Karmafist, alas, has shown much of late. I went through last night and replaced a few of his welcomes with the official welcome message, subst'd. If each of us did a few of them, then this toxicity would be reduced considerably. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he's at it again, presumably pasting in the text directly without using the template. See [15], [16], and [17], for example, or this list. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Karmafist to stop doing this in the strongest possible terms. I think getting newbies into wiki-politics before they fall in love with the encyclopedia could do tremendous damage to the project. -- SCZenz 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Karmafist has agreed to stop targetting new users for "a few weeks", which is most definitely an improvement. Hopefully he won't have to start doing this over again. NSLE (T+C) 06:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor making arbitration rulings?[edit]

Am I misreading this? [18].

I dont believe that's entirely appropriate. I removed it once, but got reverted. Since I'm not on the best of terms with this editor, I'd like to have a third opinion by a sane admin. User has been informed that behaviour was inappropriate here [19]. I hesitate to be the person to issue the warning however, due to past history.

Kim Bruning 07:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue raised by Kim is a broadening of the debate found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment
Kim confuses making with relying upon arbitration rulings. Other's have been enjoined by the arbcomm for this same behavior. That's called precedent. Enforcing policy is very much within the purview of an administrator's duties, even when such policy is established by precedent, and I simply cited precedent in the infobox. FeloniousMonk 07:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a separate issue which needs looking into, and I'd rather not confuse it with the other. In any case, I'll leave this up to a competent 3rd (or 4th) party. Kim Bruning 07:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty complicated issue. I'm pretty sure there is not a blanket prohibition on editing articles of organizations one is involved in. I have edited MIT Assassins' Guild, for instance, and really not very many people know much about it who are not members. The perspective of someone inside an organization can be a useful one to incorporate while achieving NPOV. On the other hand, the Assassins' Guild is not a controversial topic, while Answers in Genesis appears to be quite controversial. I think the box is excessive. I think asking the editor in question not to edit the page is excessive. Can you imagine if US Democrats were enjoined from editing Democratic Party (United States)? On the other hand, when evaluating various POVs in the article and associated discussion, I can see it being useful to know when an editor is a member or a strong supporter of an organization. moink 07:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbcomm has set precendent about involved editors a number of times, here's a couple: [20] [21] [22] WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing are both analogous to this. WP:AUTO states "Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." That your wife shouldn't be editing your bio or organization's article in an pov way is not much of a leap, there. WP:BLP says "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Again, it is not a stretch to see that your wife shouldn't be editing your bio and organization's article in a highly pov manner either. We're not on new ground here. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Slapping an infobox on an article that refers to arbitration precedent may not be the best way to handle this type of situation. Using the infobox cited above implies that this move is a standard practice rather than a somewhat exceptional remedy. While it has be established that the ArbCom can impose editing restrictions on editors and that the ArbCom can specify 'open' restrictions that permit admins to bar disruptive editors from certain articles, it hasn't been established that admins have a unilateral power to do so...and I'm not entirely comfortable with going down that road.
We already have tools in our toolbox to work within established policy and practice to deal with 'insiders' editing their articles. If an editor is making a nuisance of themselves on an article–despite warnings or guidance–a short block for disruption can be applied. It's a good idea to post a note to WP:AN/I outlining the circumstances both for review and so that other admins are aware of the trouble. (If an admin is personally involved in the dispute, it's best to post a note and let someone else block.) The trouble with Jack Sarfatti and User:Jack Sarfatti was handled this way; if not entirely satisfactorily, it did not require the intervention of ArbCom and curtailed the edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we've tried discussing this at her talk page for weeks and she simply deletes all comments, warnings, cautions, etc. as "trolling" or "vandalism," often accompanied with a personal attack. [23] Guettarda can tell you all about that part. I felt that a persistent warning in the form of a infobox was a far less dramatic and disruptive remedy than blocking, which, in my recent experience, simply hardens bad attitudes and drives marginally disruptive editors into chronically disruptive editors, ala User:Benapgar. But sure, fine, we'll take down the infoboxes and just block her if she continues to disrupt the articles in question if that is consensus here. FeloniousMonk 08:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Practically, I'm not sure how the effect would be different. About the only way to enforce its provisions would be through blocks. I'd feel more comfortable with "If you persist in violating WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:OWN, and/or WP:DICK, you will be blocked for a period of time" compared to "If you edit this article you will be reverted, and blocked if necessary". I suppose it depends on whether or not we think this editor can learn through operant conditioning to avoid bad behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So, does TenOfAllTrades' comments represent consensus - no infoboxes, but blocking when disruptive instead? If so, I'll take them down and we'll move forward under that advice. FeloniousMonk 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Banning policy, which appears to cover bans from single articles, says that one needs consensus from "the community" for bans (other than those decreed by the Arbcom/Board/Jimbo).... It doesn't sound like use of Arbcom precedent is in there as an available method to ban. --AySz88^-^ 08:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ban? Nobody has been banned or under threat of being banned. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought enjoining someone from editing a certain article is equivalent to banning from the article? --AySz88^-^ 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The infobox merely says users can be banned from such articles for such behavior. It then goes on to direct editors to report editing by enjoined editors here, at this page, or to follow WP:DR. Personally or overly involved editors are already enjoined from editing articles in which they are participants as a matter of policy. FeloniousMonk 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(May I suggest that we all drop the word "enjoin"? It is not a commonly-used word and I, for one, am not sure what people mean by it in this context. Do we mean "prohibited", or "blocked", or "discouraged"? I'm sure there's a more common word that we can use. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) -*A legal definition is somebody covered by an injunction, but it's not clear that the user in question has an injunction. There are only four "enjoined" users now, so far as I can tell.-Will Beback 09:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Ut oh. Jonathan Sarfati also has the box [24], [25]

The latter by Duncharris. I'm feeling rather errr, put out. Is this a new fad? Kim Bruning 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more [26] Kim Bruning 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully that's it. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with them

Wikipedia alleges to be a community. In any community there are laws, or in Wiki's case, policies. One of the primary of these policies is "assume good faith". How are we to asssume good faith if we allow duplicity and conflict of interest to flourish? I think that the big picture needs to be looked at here, and I do not feel that that is happening. Jim62sch 11:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't state this strongly enough. A ruling by the arbitration committee does not mean that administrators can use that ruling willynilly in similar cases. That statement should say "editors who are intimately involved [..] may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with by the arbitration committee". This has to stop. -- sannse (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a highly complex issue. I think its important to keep the separate events in mind. AA has been argumentative, disruptive, and has violated 3RR at least three times in the last week or so on Safarti. That FM placed this notice after multiple attempts to talk to her may not have been the best way to handle this, but here is my question: What is? She deletes messages off her page when they are cautions, warnings, etc. She forged signatures, including Guettarda's, to what she called a "summary" but was clearly formatted to be a straw poll. There was a statement, followed by Support and Oppose, and she added the signatures and even date stamps! Guettarda had not even made any statement about the subject. When told to remove all signatures but hers, she was hostile, dismissive, and entered into personal attacks. This is like Gastrich, compounded with dishonesty, as AA has steadfastly denied any connection with the subject. I am more concerned about the outright lying and clear bias, not to mention what appears to be lack of interest in working with others civilly, than I am FM's possible poor wording on a talk page notice. This entire discussion seems to be focused on the infobox, while what precipitated the infobox is being more or less ignored. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
While we can't just randomly apply an arbcomm ruling to all cases, the fact of the matter is that editors are not support to edit articles that they are too closely connected with. No one minds if someone makes a few minor changes or makes non-controversial edits. But in this case the editor has been disruptive (she has been blocked for 3rr violations at least 3 times). The issue was raised more gently in the past, and she denied any connections. It isn't the first choice, it's a choice of last resort. Guettarda 14:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
True - and if it went to RfC or arbcom I venture to suggest the result would be the same. Whitewashing and edit-warring articles on people with whom you are intimately involved is so clearly unacceptable per WP:NPOV that I'm surprised that we're even having this debate. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So take it to Arbcom. Or block for the actions that require it (I certainly have no problem with a short block for someone forging signatures). But this idea that the arbcom made a ruling in one case, so admins can apply that in similar cases is dangerous. To pick a case I've reread recently - Lir did a few provocative edits, and was banned for a year. The fact is that there was a whole lot more to that story that isn't on the case page. So if you take that and run away with it: provocative edits = year ban, you are really going to be going too far. This is important not for this case, but for the extremely dangerous precedent it sets. This would be giving admins a vast new licence to block or censure in ways that haven't been done before. In one sweep, you are rewriting a lot of policies limiting what admins can and can't do. Please stop it.

-- sannse (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Principles used in arbitration cases might be appropriately incorporated into policy, but the usual steps need to be taken for adoption as policy. Our decisions are based on particular situations. Expanding them to a general policy needs to proceed through discussion of the wisdom of applying the principle in general and how the policy is to be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That about covers it. But also, since we can't technologically ban a user from editing a single article, the discussion above is in some respects moot: any ban will only be enforceable by providing grounds for blocking if the ban is breached. But if behaviour that justifies a block is ongoing anyway and a block isn't felt to be helpful, what purpose does a "ban" serve? If people are playing nice, it doesn't matter if they're involved (no action needed); if they're not, it doesn't matter if they're banned (action can be taken per usual policy). Rd232 talk 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, Aa should not have been editing the article in the manner in which she was doing. This issue was raised before in a non-confrontational manner, and Aa denied being having a close connection to the subject matter. Given her repeated 3rr violations on the article and her increasingly hostile, confrontational and straight-out dishonest actions on that article, something has to be done. When FM presented to evidence to her that she was, despite her denials, closely linked to the subject of the article, she deleted his post and continued to edit. So, the logical next step is to post a heads up to other editors.
While only the arbcomm can actually ban users from specific articles, I would like to assume that their actions are not arbitrary. This comment was not based on a specific remedy proposed in the Min Zhu case, it was based on the underlying principle which most of the arbs supported. So to say "the arbcomm has said that Class X of editors should not be editing Class Y of articles, it's seems reasonable to repeat that. Obviously, you approach a person privately first, but when they delete the comment from their user page, it makes sense to post it somewhere else. Whether you take the matter up on the pages where the editor is editing (but probably shouldn't be) or if you take it up here is a judgment call - to me, you try to solve problems locally before you bring them here. Guettarda 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the other Arbitrators who have commented here. While this is a principle that the AC has upheld in numerous cases, I do not think it appropriate for editors to invoke the AC in cases like this. If you want an Arbitration Committee ruling on something, prepare a case.

The talk page message in question also appears to claim AC authority in making such a pronouncement. Yes, the AC has said that editors too associated with a topic MAY edit inappropriately, MAY be unable to correct that behavior, and MAY be forbidden to edit certain articles by ruling of the arbitration committee. The AC has not delegated the responsibility of deciding cases where this is appropriate. Users/administrators cannot take it upon themselves to decide that users are banned from editing certain articles and claim that the AC endorses that behavior.Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If the situation is as bad as FeloniousMonk says, it should be taken to arbitration, where the case will be accepted and a temporary injunction obtained if necessary. If it's just a matter of a rather obstinate but otherwise good editor that Felonious Monk understandably doesn't want to alienate, then use of talk pages, and (I'm afraid) very brief blocks to get his attention, would be better. But this ruritanian message box with its misleading message just won't do. We do not make policy this way and administrators currently do not have the power, without considerable community support which is obviously lacking in this case as yet, to institute bans of this nature. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to strongly agree with Tony, Morven, and others here. Invoking the arbcom decisions alone is not good enough, and especially acting as if they sanctioned such action is innapropriate. Deal with the user using the standard dispute resolution including discussions, RfC, and arbcom if need be. In the meantime if the user truly meets the disruption clause of the blocking policy that can be enforced as needed, though it is better for a non involved admin to take care of that. An RfC can be a successful way to gather consensus that a user is being disruptive to support behavior change if possible or blocking if necessary. - Taxman Talk 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To reply to what Morven said, the message, while worded a bit strongly, did not say that she was banned from editing the article. It said (emphasis added) "Per arbitration committee precedent editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with." Agapetos angel is editing disruptively - she has been blocked for 3rr violations on that article three times. Unless you are asserting that the arbcomm rules capriciously, the principles adopted in one arbcomm case of what is right and proper in editing Wikipedia should be applicable to other similar cases. If you tell someone "X is not allowed" and they reply "I'm not doing X", and then it is brought to your attention that they are doing X, and you point out that the evidence and they delete your comment and ignore it - isn't it reasonable to point out to them "If you continue doing X the arbcomm may ban you"? The remainder - posting the boxes and where they were posted in a separate issue. The issue of arbcomm rulings is informational, and it is useful information that should be available to other editors interaction with the person on the articles in question. Guettarda 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the infobox is designed to "look official" while making a statement that is not official. I especially have a problem with the wording following that which you quote:
The above listed editors are enjoined from editing the article's content due to their proximity to the topic. To report abuse leave a message at WP:AN or follow the steps at WP:DR.
which leaves the distinct impression that there is an arbcom-sanctioned ban on these users. I do not have a problem with leaving a personal message on a user's talk page telling them that the behavior they are engaged in may lead to sanctions. However, I am opposed to an official-looking notice implying arbcom sanction being applied to articles' talk pages naming particular users and implying that they are officially banned from the article. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Matthew here. It's not the warning that disruptive behavior isn't allowed and will result in sanctions; it's the way it's presented. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I feel that FM has indeed been "over-applying" WP:AUTO and "arbcom precedent" in the tenor of his comments (for example, [27]). The autobiography guidelines are only that, and in in fact very weakly worded (far too weakly, IMO). I made similar observations on the Sarfati talk page before all of this blew up, come to that. OTOH, I regard AA's behaviour in editing in this manner, and counter-accusations of harassment to be very poor. While I generally agree with the drift of what Tony S. says, I'd strongly recommend against blocks that are a) not based clearly on blocking policy, and b) applied by admins involved in related disputes. Alai 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken identity: Oklahoma and Paul Vogel[edit]

On February 7, I told Mel Etitis that 216.45.251.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was used by banned user Paul Vogel to vandalize Cosmotheism and William Luther Pierce [28]. At around the same time, a new user, Oklahoma (talk · contribs), previously editing under various IPs beginning with 64, 68, 69, 70, etc., popped up and began editing Cosmotheism. ME took my original statement to mean that Oklahoma = PV. As a result, ME blocked O as a sock puppet of PV [29]. He even told me that "Oklahoma admitted to being 216.45.251.197" [30]. O has openly stated that he is not PV [31]. I have to agree with O here that this is a case of mistaken identity. First, when Oklahoma admitted to being an anonymous user, he likely admitted to using 64, 68, 69, 70, etc., and not 216.45.251.197 - this would be a misunderstanding by ME. Second, the IP addresses do not trace to the same geographical region (the 64, 68, 69, and 70 addresses trace to Oklahoma, while 216.45.251.197 traces to New York). Third, when editing Cosmotheism, O focuses on Mordekhay Nesiyahu while PV focuses on William Luther Pierce. This alone should be convincing evidence that Oklahoma and Paul Vogel are two different people (CheckUser would be the ultimate clarifier, of course). I told ME about this yesterday [32], but so far, he has yet to respond. I hereby urge that someone look into this matter and, if necessary, unblock Oklahoma and apologize to him for mistaken identity. --TML1988 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed your message on my Talk page; sorry — I don't know how that happened. I'll unblock Oklahoma, but given the behaviour that led to his blocking (vandalism via IP addresses, evaded by opening an account), I don't think that an apology is in order. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, he's unblocked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any edits to those articles in Oklahoma's contributions or on the articles' history pages, though he commented on the talk page of Cosmotheism. All of the rest of his edits are also to talk pages, most of them his own. Are his edits to the articles not showing up for some reason? -- Kjkolb 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Patch[edit]

My proposals (please respond/discuss/vote on sub page so as not to disrupt regular discussion here)

  1. I am quite satisfied with the m:9/11 wiki move proposal argument style and I propose it here for all deletions.
  2. I also propose the merging of Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive.
    • Articles for deletion is misleading, this is not a page where only deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as keep or move/rename as well as delete. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other nonsense
--Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to make alternative proposals. Also please explain why you support or oppose a particular view point. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Squidward vandal[edit]

It seems that a vandal has appeared who blanks entire pages and replaces it with a "Squidward" picture. Due to the significant amount of disruption this has caused, I assume that it would be reasonable to block these IP addresses indefinitely, and then slowly review each of them to ensure that they are not open proxies? --HappyCamper 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The wide range of IPs that the attack is coming from suggests that they are all open proxies. I'd suggest blocking them all indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How was this vandal able to use so many different IPs? Have they all been blocked? I must have reverted around 150 of of instances of this, all seemingly different IPs. Paul August 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I know, but I'm a little afraid to post it here because vandals read this board (i.e. WP:BEANS). Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe go on IRC and get admins to preemtively block the open proxies or loopholes? Or is it more complicated than that? --AySz88^-^ 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the range 203.186.238.0/24 indefinitely. It was used by the Squidward vandal and appears to be an open proxy. —Guanaco 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but that should be narrowed a bit further to 203.186.238.128/25. -- Curps 06:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I was heartened to see how effective we can all work as a team. Although the vandalism was extremely disruptive, for the few minutes that it was occurring, it seemed that all the administrators who were online were working in unison, and in short - it was wonderful to see that. --HappyCamper 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I second that. It actually didn't take long to undo the damage. Also a lot of open proxies were found and shot. Nice work everyone. Antandrus (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I third that, most edits were reverted within 5 min of it coming up. I think we can expect another bot attack tomorrow as this is 2 days in a row at the same time. By the end of it, I had 150 firefox tabs open each with a revert order on a page. -- Tawker 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would mention that this was Squidward's second appearance. He made a similar attack yesterday but of shorter duration. —Wayward Talk 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


According to http://www.apnic.net/ , the range 203.186.238.128/25 belongs to an ISP in Hong Kong. Maybe this is an ISP proxy and not an open proxy... can someone high up at Wikimedia contact the ISP and ask for their assistance?

inetnum:      203.186.128.0 - 203.186.255.255
netname:      CTIHK
descr:        City Telecom (H.K.) Ltd.
descr:        Internet Service Provider in Hong Kong
country:      HK
admin-c:      CH134-AP
tech-c:       SL116-AP
mnt-by:       APNIC-HM
mnt-lower:    MAINT-HK-CTI
changed:      hostmaster@apnic.net 20000704
changed:      hostmaster@apnic.net 20020116
status:       ALLOCATED PORTABLE
source:       APNIC

person:       CTINETS HOSTMASTER
address:      15/F, Trans Asia Centre,
address:      18 Kin Hong Street,
address:      Kwai Chung, N.T.,
address:      Hong Kong
country:      HK
phone:        +852-3145-5111
fax-no:       +852-3145-5267
e-mail:       hostmaster@ctihk.com
nic-hdl:      CH134-AP
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-CTI
changed:      hostmaster@ctihk.com 20000831
source:       APNIC

person:       Sam Leung
nic-hdl:      SL116-AP
e-mail:       fionat@ctihk.com
address:      15/F, Trans Asia Centre, 18 Kin Hong Street, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong
phone:        +852-3145-5190
fax-no:       +852-2199-0810
country:      HK
changed:      hostmaster@ctihk.com 20040706
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-CTI
source:       APNIC


I believe that below is the complete set of IPs used by the Squidward vandal in today's attack. As someone already pointed out, there were at least two prior attacks yesterday. Some of the blocks are conflicting (24 hours vs indefinite), sorry about that.