*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.
Grawp
Fuck WP:DENY, we have a serious problem here. I don't want my watchlist looking like this every day:
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
(Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia over redirect (vandalism)
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6))
(Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (vandalism)
(Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia to Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
(Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Akrotiri and Dhekelia to HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
(diff) (hist) . . m List of incomplete Doctor Who serials; 10:33 . . (+1) . . Moochocoogle (Talk | contribs) (→Third Doctor)
(diff) (hist) . . Max Mosley; 10:16 . . (-321) . . 4u1e (Talk | contribs) (trim lead per template. Article is 35k+ characters, for which WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs)
(Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
(Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Star Wars' (and the only contributor was 'Luna Santin'))
(Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Star Wars over redirect (revert)
(Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Star Wars over redirect (revert)
(Move log); 09:52 . . Gifðas (Talk | contribs) moved Star Wars to HAGGEЯ?(spaces)(for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
We've got several problems here:
It took nearly twenty minutes for admins to fix serious vandalism on the article for Star Wars
It is very easy for sleeper attacks (two in an hour, and my watchlist is rather small - 200 items including most of my images, and some wikiprojects and noticeboards)
So think. What's the best way of fixing this? We could implement an edit requirement on moves - it's one line of code, IIRC. But we really need to stop Grawp. Sceptre(talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't moves part of the stuff that only auto-confirmed accounts can do? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Register account. Return in a week. Easy street. Sceptre(talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its only 4 days. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sleepers were from 2007. At least one was, in this case. SQLQuery me! 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last three I've seen (in the last 3 days) have been from 2007. May 2007 to be exact. He obviously has a list of them and is using them up in order of creation. I would assume that he is creating them as fast as he uses them up. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I would support adding even a minimal edit count restriction on autoconfirm. This would cut down on sleeper socks used to edit semi-protected pages as well. Also of interest is a quick script I wrote to auto-revert pagemoves, User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js. It adds a "revert all" tab when viewing a move log. I'm still working on a version that will also delete the redirects created. Also, it isn't very tested (I used it once) but it should work. If you use it, make sure to turn off "Add pages I move to my watchlist" or your watchlist will look like this when you are done. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the hard way is to convince a developer to program a feature that would block any page move that involves "HAG" as part of the move, then again that seems like a lot of unneded work and we don't want to give him bragging rights for his stupidity, so what is left? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that such a solution would have unintended negative side effects. I do support a minimum edit count before autoconfirming, though. —Travistalk 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Add a minimal edit count restriction for autoconfirm, we already have a titleblacklistMr.Z-man 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we should establish a solid number, not something that could be ignored by doing a few minor edits, so 250? 500? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was proposed earlier for another form of semi protection to protect against sleeper vandalism-only accounts, at one time dubbed quasi protection. It was shot down originally due to wasting so much time since admins would have had to confirm each account. Then it was proposed again when the software was updated so that it would automatically be confirmed after x amount of edits. I don't think that proposal gained enough consensus for it to be implemented. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3xec)I bumped up the priority of SpamRegex request, which will enable us to blacklist things (like "HAGGER" and all its possible variants in one regex) just about wherever people can type them - page titles, move fields, edit summaries, log entries, usernames; you name it, it's blocked. All they have to do is install it, and Grawp's sunk. Sure he can keep being annoying, but we won't know it's him without the trademark "hagger" string, and where's the fun in that? Happy‑melon 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why new users should have to clock up an arbitrary, fixed number of edits before being allowed to move a page. My fourth ever edit, 15 minutes after registering, was a page move [1]. --RFBailey (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a throttle then, 1 page move per minute till a user have 100 edits? Or some form of captcha for page moves for editors with under 100 edits. MBisanztalk 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just limit moves to non-admins and non-flagged bots to 1 every 5 minutes? How often does any non-bot or non-admin really need to move a page...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
300 seconds is a long time to wait. In November of 2006 for example I moved pages quite a bit faster than that, and for legitimate reasons. Maybe you meant 5 every 1 minute? — CharlotteWebb 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I've contacted Mike Godwin and asked for the release of Grawp's IP. I've yet to get a response but once I do we may be a step closer to getting his ISP to track him down in real life. Also it may be worth mentioning that a bugzilla request was made for an "extension spam regex" which would allow for the blacklisting of content in edit summaries. This request may have already gone through, as Grawp is now modifying the content of his edit summaries.--UrbanRose 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikey is a very busy guy, no need to bother him. It is already public knowledge that this twat is editing from various IPs in the 71.107.128.0/18 range (71.107.128.0 to 71.107.191.255), though there are probably others. — CharlotteWebb 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Grawp might use a botnet so tracing his IPs might just get a compromised computer. I read here once some vandal did that and I don't know if it was Grawp or not. William Ortiz (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say why you think that? If need be, e-mail me to avoid WP:BEANS. Even if all we get is a zombie computer, it should be reported, so it can be cleaned out. Either way, we catch something. And if it is compromised by Grawp, checking the logs on there might give us more information about him. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:FICT got moved to a Hagger title. Why are we sitting around doing nothing? We should, at the very least, move-protect all guidelines and policies - there's no earthly reason why they should be moved anyway. Sceptre(talk) 09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong told me that a lot of the recent accounts were sleeper socks that were really old. By looking at them most haven't contributed for 3 months to a year. William Ortiz (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have everything under control. There is no need for alarm. El_C 09:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His stupidity has been showing up on my watchlist almost every day on this week, the socks are living too long for my taste and are being able to move a lot of pages before being smashed with the banhammer, thus I respectfully disagree that we have him under control. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at this again I would tend to think that we need some minimum edit count before becoming autoconfirmed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I recognized some of those. He (or someone else) regularly spams /b/ on 4chan with urls to do these type of operations hoping someone accidentally (or intentionally) clicks on them. The reason I suspect it is the same person is the aforementioned urls provide the same comments in the &wpSummary= field when he posts them. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Caribbean H.Q. and Stifle above, I'm not sure Grawp is under control. My watchlist has been frequently cluttered by this silly nonsense. I do think a minimum edit count for autoconfirmation would help make life harder for sleeper sock farms without causing much collateral damage. 100 edits? - Neparis (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a solution that would virtually put and end to vandalism, sockpuppetry, and the countless hours of our lives that we spend reverting and blocking it: Require account creation and a confirmed ISP email address. I'm not here to start another argument over whether or not account creation should be required. I know that the Meta states that one of Wikipedia's core principles and one that should virtually be beyond debate is that account creation shouldn't be required. I'm just stating the reason why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. Would it mean to fewer fly by typo corrections? Yes. Would it mean some users would stop contributing to Wikipedia? Yes. Would it put a total end to vandalism? No. But it won't deter dedicated users from contributing to the encyclopedia. And that's how the majority of good articles in this encyclopedia got to be what they are today. They were written by a (relatively) few dedicated users who make large contributions, not by many contributors making small contributions over a great period of time. I don't have the statistics which prove this, but it is my strong belief that this is what such statistics will show. For more information, see my userpage on Encyclopedia Dramatica (User:UR) (the image and caption on the page were not put there by me) or my upcoming post at Wikipedia review. (I originally created an account on ED to try to get them to remove stuff about me from an article but ended up realizing that I might as well be editing the site than putting up with this nonsense that is vandalism). If you disagree with me, just ignore this, I'm not here to argue. This is probably going to be my last post for a long while. Until the administration makes these changes, I just can't see any reason to continue here. I may occasionally make edits to actual articles, but I've had enough of reverting edits by schoolkids, sociopaths and autistics to articles I didn't even write.--UrbanRose 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if you have no ISP email address? I don't have one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm changing my opinion and saying that just any email address will do, though this would mean that dedicated sockpuppeteers would still be able to vandalize by creating multiple email accounts. Though I agree that if there are people who don't have ISP email addresses, it wouldn't be beneficial to stop them from editing.--UrbanRose 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an ISP per se; I'm at a restaurant with free WiFi. Requireing an email would be great; a unique one that gets confirmed, would not have to be enabled for user email. For those who don't, wait 500 edits before you can move stuff. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though it may be productive to come up with precautionary measures to combat these serial vandal page moves; vandalism is a problem that will always exist on Wikipedia. In a sense these blatant forms of it are move desirable (if you could call vandalism desirable), since they are easier to detect. The more sinister forms of vandalism are the ones that come from accounts that insert microscopic errors which may not be discovered for months. Also, we have a million Grawps that visit our site on a regular basis, so in my opinion this Grawp ain't that unique and really shouldn't be glorified in this manner. Basically you can sum up my opinion with these lyrics from a great Beatle's song..."Let it be, let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be." Whispers: "Let 'em be" to wallow away as we RBI 'em out and continue building an encyclopedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 02:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these "Grawp" threads are glorifying him and this time I didn't create it. And I'm not retiring from vandal fighting because of Grawp. It's because of vandals in general. True if my proposal was implemented, vandals would still exist, but in such small numbers that people wouldn't have to spend hours a day browsing recent changes just to keep their encyclopedia intact. The countless hours that are spent on this is just ridiculous when it could virtually be eliminated by just two simple measures. Sadly, as Wikipedia (falsely, in my opinion) believes that allowing users to edit the site without registering is what is responsible for its greatness (which would be much more so if this was implemented), it isn't likely that this is going to happen any time soon. I also forgot to mention that I am for users being allowed to make anonymous practice edits to the sandbox or Wikipedia:Introduction, but allowing anonymous edits to the whole encyclopedia is the reason that vandalism is so rampant, and is a reason that many legitimate editors who care about Wikipedia are getting tired of having to put up with it and choosing to leave.--UrbanRose 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on it. Also, that user would have probably gotten past the autoconfirmed limit (it has several hundred edits). The main "autoconfirmed" issue is that these sleepers have no edits; but this one does, as have several others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably VPP first - technically it's an absolute doddle to enact (one line in the right config file by someone with shell access). Get support from VPP then either file a bug request yourself or ask someone who regulars at VPT to do it. Happy‑melon 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Grawp hit meta this morning. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been doing that lately, too. Lar is working on things. He has checkuser both here and there, so we may be rid of Grawp, once we can narrow down his editing range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many (but definitely not all) articles should be move-protected. Why do we want pages like George W. Bush or Paris ever moved on a whim, anyway without WP:RM? Since HAGGERs are up to such high profile articles mostly, that would save a lot of grief. Same applies to user-pages. Some users are particularly liked by HAGGERs. Betacommand and Raul come to mind for the userpages moved by vandals more often than others. Why should such moves be needed in the first place to allow them by default? --Irpen 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not always so; Grawp hit a lot of country articles today, and attacked D&D a few days ago. He appears to be going at random. -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the exact same thing, Irpen. I'm all for move-protecting such obvious cases that would require a proper move request anyway. - Regards, Ev (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does anyone need to be able to move so many pages per minute? A great deal of the damage could be mitigated by simply limiting the number of pagemoves per minute. Any mass-moves should probably be done through consensus discussion anyways. --Tom (talk - email) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be a limit per account, or else legitimate moved might get stymied. -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, since Grawp seems to enjoy changing pages tothe nonsense term HAGGAR?? or variations therof, why don't we make a preemptive strike, we could create a page with that name, as well as other pages covering likely variations, and then lock the page down indefinently. On the page should be a brief explanation that the page exists to prevent Grawp from moving other pages to HAGGAR?? . It isn't a permanent solution, and is definently unconventional, but maybe it would atleast slow Grawp down. F-451 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't work, when you include Unicode variants, space and NBSPing variants, and other terms in the title the possibilities are actually endless. And I'd say have 1 billion GRAWP preventing page protections and 2.5 million articles would be overkill. MBisanztalk 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MBianz; Grawp has a fondness for Unicode, as shown in his move targets and his usernames. However, this fondness makes some of his socks obvious, as he mainly only uses obscure ones. -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions I haven't seen here that may be helpful for various reasons, mostly Grawp:
A minimum edit count per se to stop moves is probably a poor choice. Most of his socks seem to have 2-3 edits when they are originally created, and of course they are all named accounts. So an edit count above 10 would be a reasonabe minimum, but I am unquiet that that would not be an annoyance to autoconfirmed users. I think there are better solutions.
Non-admin rollback is limited to N per minute. Non-admin move could be limited similarly, although not necessarily to the same values. 3 moves/minute should be fine for most users, assuming that a move of a page and the corresponding talk page is counted as a single move. Note that 3 moves/minute is one every 20 seconds. Given an even slightly slow DSL line that isn't much of a limitation.
Non-admin moves could be limiited to M per 24 hours, where M is <= 10. Ideally there should be a priv bit similar in concept to the rollback bit that could be granted to users on request to increase this limit substantially, or remove it completely.
Grawp socks lie dormant for most of a year. If there have been no edits in the account in the past 30 days, or less than 1 edit/day over the last 30 days (or similar), deny moves as though the user was not autoconfirmed. This would force Grawp to do 30 normal vandalisms on a sock account before he could begin using it for move vandalism. Likely that would be caught before Bad Things started to happen.
Grawp socks never bother having a user page. If the user has < X edits/day in the last month or so and has no user page, don't allow moves.
If warnings on the talk page could be flagged in the database, disallow moves if a warning of any sort has been issued in the last day. This would stop moves as soon as the first recent changes patroller warned on a move.
If an account has been dormant for 30 days, disallow moves for one day after an intial edit.
Just some thoughts, maybe some useful. Grawp is a pain to deal with. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec'd with above) Ideas that have been discussed before and not gone anywhere are limits on what new accounts can do. Things that would be effective are no moves allowed until an account is somewhat 'seasoned'; limits on how many moves can be performed before an account is 'well-seasoned'. Many of these accounts are old sleepers and to deal with this, the definition of 'seasoned' would have to include recent activity. There is no reason for an account that's done nothing in months to suddenly move 40 pages. Some of this rather goes against the grain of what a wiki 'is' but this is not the wiki-verse of some years ago; this site is hugely popular and this attracts all sorts of people some of whom are rather less than stellar. The naughty boy in this case has said he won't stop; believe it. He has to be made to stop. As Jack Merridew said, Sharpen a stick at both ends. I may add a fuller snippet to my userpage. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, again, isn't always the case; a couple nights ago we caught him on a TOR address creating loads of sleepers with Unicode symbols, which suggests to me he's running out of prepped sleepers (and, yes, we know it's him because the Unicode symbols are obscure and two of the names suffered from Potteritis). And, again, we already have an IP we can use to rat him out to his ISP; I don't think he'll find any lulz if he's cut off. -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think outside the box
Limit page move throttle to 1 or 2 per minute - should be enough for most people.
Create a permission "fastmove" that allows to move pages at rates unrestricted by above throttle.
Give fastmove to admins and allow admins to grant and revoke the fastmover group to users (a group that consists only of the fastmove permission).
Thank you for your attention. Миша13 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like. Why not just link fastmove to rollback permissions to save another layer? Except then we perpetuate this nonsense of "classes" of editor/rollbacker/admin/'crat etc - that would be the reason. Okay, answered myself. Still, I like the idea of throttling page moves though. Pedro : Chat 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - these are utility permissions (like all are) and should be granted as needed (and independently) and not to indicate some "social status" of an editor. Besides, unlike the rollback, I don't expect a surge of requests - batch page moves (see User:SPUI) are not something common - the default rate should really be enough for everyday work. Миша13 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here is a simple thought create a Curps bot. I have a framework for one sitting around, that will quickly put an end to this pain in the ass. βcommand 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case you forgot, I already *am* running my own "curpsbot" (and have been so for over 1.5 years). And no, it's not putting and end very efficiently, because Grawp is using new smart unicode substitutions every time I update the regex lists. We need a systemic solution that would aid the symptomatic one. Миша13 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throw the regex out the window, and block anyone moving pages with an edit summary linking to any external link. Would there be any (legit) reason to move a page, while using an external link in the edit summary? And if there is, simply put the link and reason on a userpage, ANI, or something like that, and use that in the move summary. Grawp socks would then be caught faster, or he wouldn't be able to use that tactic anymore. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that it does not actually solve the problem. As far as doing so, I think Misza's is the best. Throttling of page moves is a far better solution than the counting of edits and allowing for those that need more resolves the exception user that needs it for legitimate purposes. Overall, it seems like a fine way of resolving the situation. SorryGuy Talk 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Some of these solutions aren't particularly outside of the box and some of them go against some of our oldest principles. For years, we have made the conscious decision not to create "castes." Almost all editors are on the same level. At some point, we instituted an admin level (to be able to block users and protect articles) and later we instituted an autoconfirmed level (a decision that from what I understand, has been regretted later by some of the sysadmins). Making user rights more modular is a giant shift from current practices. It seems that we may be headed in that direction, but the costs of doing so don't really seem to match the benefits.
There has been discussion about raising the autoconfirmed limits a bit, though some of these Grawp socks have a number of legitimate edits. Perhaps we should set the number of edits needed to be autoconfirmed at 20 or 25. There has also been discussion about accounts going in to "sleep" mode after a certain period -- but again, this sleep period would most likely be longer than what would be needed to stop the Grawp sleeper accounts we've been seeing. I'm all for thinking outside of the box, but we must incredibly careful to not harm the Wiki Way or punish new and old users. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents' worth: (1) I agree with the proposals above to not allow pagemoves without some minimum number of edits (100? 200?), and to disable them if an account is inactive for some period of time (3 months?) until the minimum number of edits is made again. (2) Is it possible to further restrict moves of pages to titles with Unicode characters? (Or at least titles with any variant of a question mark?) Like, maybe even limiting that to administrators? The number of legitimate needs for such pagemoves should be small enough that it wouldn't be a big deal to ask an admin for permission for one of those. (3) The Grawp sleeper socks that edited last night were created November 2006 (User:Iccardius) and September 13, 2005 (User:Nimor Imphraezl). The last one is from over 2 years before the Grawp vandalism started, and suggests to me that Grawp is the same person as one of the earlier serial vandals like Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, etc. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the code Grawp often drops on pages — and I remember the Pelican vandal's code — and if they're not the same user then Grawp copied the Pelican vandal's code (so, assuming 'good faith' results in a finding that grawp can't code for beans. he just copies). Someone, give me an exact Pelican vandal username to check again… Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found [2]; but the account has no contribs at all; they've all been deleted? Good-on. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're accounts that have been compromised? Because using sleepers that are three years old raises a red flag here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think how he compromised those accounts is that spam link from his edit summary. When I try to put that spam link in the address, my computer almost got hacked, but virus protection manages to take care of it. My virus protection categorizes it as "exploit/potentially unwanted software", so isn't it possible that his "spam" compromised the accounts (assuming no virus protection). Any other explanation? PrestonH 04:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply another form of phishing. MER-C 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/bug 10864 for the autoconfirmed limit. It might be worth reviving. I'd support a page move throttle but bots, admins and rollbacks should be exempt (after all, they should be able to revert the page moves at a faster rate than they are made). MER-C 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of these old accounts had a dozen or so useful edits, then nothing until the move vandalism. How easy would it be to combine a throttle with access to move based on recent editing activity. Something like allowing one page move per day for each 50 edits in the last 30 days. And would there be many concerns with move-protecting featured articles? Gimmetrow 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we've been too conservative with the regexes we've used against Grawp thus far, in an attempt to completley avoid false positives. But admins can edit through the title blacklist, so it's not a be-all and end-all. Change Mediawiki:titleblacklist-forbidden-edit to make a clear note that this may occasionally throw false positives, and a link to ask for admin attention to create legitimate articles (maybe a section of WP:AFC). Then have a serious think about which unicode characters have significant numbers of legitimate uses in article titles. Of the 100,000 Unicode characters, I bet 95% of them have no legitimate use in titles on the english wikipedia; and as we've seen, they're just asking to be used as security bypasses. Let's run a database query on the page table and see which characters are actually being used; from a sample of 11 million, I think we can be reasonably sure that any that are currently unused can be safely blacklisted. Once we know that we have a finite, and manageable, set of characters that can be used in titles, constructing regexes to comprehensively block more specific classes of titles (or, when we finally get Extension:SpamRegex, all contributions) will be made much easier and effective. Happy‑melon 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WMF Logos
This is being cross-posted from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#WMF_Logos on request for greater visability. Images like Image:Wikimedia.png are non-free copyrighted images owned by the WMF that should only be used per FUR guidelines. I think we should comment their use out of all userpages that have them as fairuse overuse. This is because all page of wikipedia, including user pages, should be non-free compliant. While it may not be a legal problem directly, for all the sites that scrape our database, their violating the copyright when they republish a userpage with the logo. Also, someone could argue trademark dilution if the logo is slapped willy-nilly on every user page. Any objections to commenting them out?. MBisanztalk
I object, largely on the basis that I see this as more paranoia than factually-driven. Has anyone from the Foundation voiced an opinion on the matter? EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF position from the last time I raised this question (~6 months ago, if I recall correctly), is that they have no official position. Or to put it more plainly they have not granted any license or permission for any generic third party use of their copyrights and trademarks within or outside of Wikipedia. At the same time, they are aware of these uses and have not taken any explicit action to generically restrict or remove the unathorized use of their copyrights and trademarks within Wikipedia. (Though it is worth noting that they have removed a few specific examples of infringing uses in the past.) So you can read into that whatever you want. MBisanz is basically correct that in the absense of an authorizing license, all of these uses created by Wikipedians represent acts of copyright/trademark infringment both within Wikipedia and for reusers. However, the WMF is obviously in a position to snuff this out even without legal action, should they choose to do so. I've been advocating for an official WMF Logo use policy for nigh on 2 years now, but it seems little progress has been made. Personally, my feeling is that under the current situation they are plainly unfree and purely decorative uses of WMF logos should be restricted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) MB[reply]
Echoing Dragon flight, I just checked my userpage, I have 5 violating images on it, 4 just through using userboxes with copyrighted images. If you want to look at it another way, were the WMF to sue an outsider for using the logo as a trademark violation, the outsider user would have an easy time convincing people that the trademark was already diluted beyond repair through our overuse, so reallyyou could think of it that we're hurting the foundation by overusing them to this extent. MBisanztalk 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EVula, I understand your concerns, but so far I haven't found a statement giving permission for re-use on en-wiki userpages. Could someone check OTRS-permissions? MBisanztalk 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer I get is... Officially no, it is up to the community how they police that. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, if we don't have legal permission to use the logos, then I think we ought to err on the side of caution. I don't mind if their used on say a policy page or that sort of thing, but using it on welcome templates is to me, overuse, considering its not critical to see that logo to understand how to use WP or what the WMF is. MBisanztalk 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as above, officially, no permission. The community takes on the role of how they handle this. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine the WMF suing Wikipedia... John Reaves 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what about About.com for scraping it with our userpages... MBisanztalk 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should worry ourselves excessively over what other websites do; we have pathetically little influence over websites that aren't hosted by the Foundation. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should worry about distributing "free" content that is in fact unfree. That's the situtation we often create by embedding WMF logos in things. In my opinion, if the logo isn't actually important to the topic being discussed we would probably be better off to do without it. Dragons flight (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear folks, our trademark lawyers (outside counsel) advise us not to approve the use of our trademarks outside official Foundation activities or projects. There are good reasons for this -- one of them is the purpose of trademark law itself, which is to prevent marketplace confusion. Another is that we don't want a symbol of affiliation that might signal to litigious people that you're responsible for what we do, or that we're responsible for what you do. So, we're asking people not to use the trademarks (either the graphic or the word mark), although of course you can engage in "nominative fair use," aka "nominative use." (There's a good article on the subject on en.wiki.) 69.17.48.227MikeGodwin (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion for a long time is that we shouldn't use these. If the WMF releases another logo with a free copyright license, we can use that. Until then, it's hypocritical for us to speak for free content while not walking the walk. (And, it's absurd that a screenshot of our main page has to be classified as nonfree.) Perhaps we can have a competition for a free Wikipedia logo? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to give some size to the issue, there are over 500 uses of the less popular WMF logo and over 500 of the WP globe logo, I suspect their placement on certain high use templates means the actual number is in the tens to hundreds of thousands. I took Mike's advice and looked at Nominative use. I'd say that by placing the logos on the Welcome tempaltes and on userboxen we run into problems relating to:
2. The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol) 3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.
When we welcome a user, we are welcoming them as another user, not on behalf of WMF or the project it owns, Wikipedia. Also, in userboxes I don't think a logo is necessary to identify that I have a WMF issued global account. Carl brings up some good ideas, but I'd say that until we find some artistic talent, at least killing them off the Templates and userpages would be a good start. MBisanztalk 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been debated time and time again. This is really a discussion for WP:NFC and not WP:AN. The basic gist is that we don't have a problem with using these copyrighted logos because we are using them for the operation of Wikipedia, and in limited fashion. WP:CVU used to have official logos, and those were removed. No big deal. If we need to evaluate some situations, ok, but a total ban for meta space is absurd and entirely unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin says, above, that we should treat these as fair use images. NFCC is clear that fair use images shouldn't be used except in namespace 0. I think that is a quite compelling argument for removing them from other namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary - as the foundation fails to protect their copyright/trademark, it loses value and enforcability. WilyD 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we aren't using them in limited amount, we have them in dozens of templates on thousands of userpages. Mr.Z-man 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For perspective, the main Wikipedia globe is used on 43,000 talk, user, and user talk pages. Thats one of 100 images being targeted by this proposed bot function. MBisanztalk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let me get this straight. Various people have suggested, for years, that we follow our own fair use guidelines with regards to the WMF logos. Various people have responded, that since the WMF was unlikely to sue itself, the present practices could continue until the legal team said to stop. And when asked for their official position, the foundation replied by telling us that their official position consisted of not having an official position at all. So things continued. Now, 7 years after the project starts, when the legal team finally decides to consult their (undoubtedly overpriced) "outside counsel" on copyright affairs, they tell them that in fact there is no particular reason to continue to ignore common sense and trash our copyright in this manner. And now, years after this issue was first raised, we finally get our answer: No using the WMF logos on user pages. Now of course it is up to us to waste yet more foundation resources making tens (hundreds?) of thousands of edits to fix it. All because they decided to leave us hanging for this long. And no one is even remotely worried about the fact that this is the star team of lawyers upon whom we daily rely to protect us from potential lawsuits with the use of an outdated copyright law used out of the context for which it was originally intended? If I got any of this wrong, please tell me. I would like very much for this sudden worry at the long-term viability of this website to be unfounded.--Dycedargж 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be simple enough to code a bot to do the removing. But yes, it's a legacy of the carefree days of Wikipedia's youth when nobody gave a shit about these issues, because the "brand" was worthless and nobody have ever heard of the place. WilyD 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no rush to complete this task, and frankly, a lot of this discussion seems as though there's a pressing need to have these images removed as soon as humanly possible. The reality is that these images have been used for years, and removing them should only be done with care. Personally, I think some of the uses of the WMF logo are blatantly trivial (welcome templates, etc.). However, simply disabling the images (prepending the Image code with a colon) is a bad idea. The image should either be replaced or removed altogether. But I will say again that there isn't a need to have all of this done by the end of the day, or by the end of this week, or even by the end of May. If the community spends a week or two discussing this, nothing is lost. (And perhaps as Carl suggested, we could have a contest to create a free alternative.) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my page was clean, and then I noticed Template:Administrator had Image:Admin mop.PNG. Is that one of the images that would be removed if we clamp down on this? I've read the image page, and I can't work out what it means. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be because it includes the Wikipedia globe. WODUP 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright holder can allow a specific person or organization or group or class to use their images in a specific way. The WMF said that the community should decide how to handle this. That means, by my interpretation, that if we decide to allow the use of WMF images anywhere within wikipedia, that this is allowed by their permission, because the community decides it. So why not make this simple and just decide it's quite okay, and just move on to other important issues? Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have fundementally misunderstood. See my comment below. I believe the "decision" to make now is how to go about resolving the issue by reducing the inappropriate uses, but that simply deciding to keep them is not an option because as evidenced by Mike Godwin above the WMF does not approve that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One would think that they would allow the use of their own logo on their own websites. Otherwise, they'd have to be removed off of every single page on every single project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry makes a very good point. If they let the community decide, let's just decide to keep it and get it over with. Without going through the trouble of making a bot, ruining the looks of many userpages, etc, why not just let them be? Even if it's copyrighted, we keep saying that a logo is no allowed on its own site. Soxred93 (ut) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think letting the community decide to keep them was an option. Look at the statement by Mike Godwin, the WMF general counsel, above: "we're asking people not to use the trademarks...". That seems pretty plain to me. I believe what was intended is that we, the community, can decide how we deal with phasing them out, but not that we have the option to decide to keep them indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless of the rest, "nonfree", even "nonfree with permission to use on Wikipedia", is not acceptable in userspace. Only free images may be used in userspace. The Wikimedia logos are nonfree, so they're no more acceptable than, say, the Nike logo would be. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody better let Nike know that they have to remove their logo from their website then, eh? Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about Nike's website? I believe the intended point was that they consider the Wikimedia logo to be no more acceptable than the Nike logo in userspace on Wikipedia... --Onorem♠Dil 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Nike" was a typo for "Mike". -- 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the official logos from a number of pages, both in article and in meta space. There's no reason we can't calmly assess different uses of the logos and slowly roll out changes as needed. We certainly don't need a total ban, and we certainly don't need to put the entire community into a panic. We've got several graphics that can easily be replaced, and rather quickly in our highest use templates, without much controversy. We've got commons:Image:Wiki letter w.svg (more in commons:Category:Wikipedia puzzle piece icons) and tons more.
Once we hit up the high use templates and such, we probably won't even need to touch the individual uses. We'll have taken care of most of the problem with the templates. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but apparently MBisanz has stated that he exchanged an email with Mike. Seems we may have misinterpreted Mike's earlier comment :S.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should've cross posted. ZScout370 is going to try and get an on-wiki statement from Mike, but suffice it to say, his email makes it clear that WMF logos may be used in any userspace of the project. MBisanztalk 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, yes, we can use them all we like. However, we should take care to keep them out of the article space whenever possible because they are still non-free. —Remember the dot(talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are usable on the userspace, then it's clear that we can use them in any space necessary. They're only not-free to non-Wikimedia entities. Unless they need to qualify for fair use rationales (while being on the Commons), then they're free to use in the article space without any sort of justification (I would assume).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for an image to be non-free to one group and free to another. These images are non-free, full stop, and we have to tag them as such to avoid misleading others. Personally, I don't see why we should waive the NFCC criteria for them. I think we should simply make a free logo and stop using the WMF's logo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's what we did to create the WMF logo. Then the author signed over the copyright to the foundation. The reason the WMF doesn't release their logos under the GFDL or CC or some other free license, is purely to prevent impersonation or brand-identity issues - if it's clear that a site is trying to directly impersonate wikipedia, the WMF can take them to court for misuse of the logos, trademarked phrases, etc. I'd argue that, far from being trademark dilution, using the WMF logos around wikimedia actually reinforces their use as a brand image. Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but Mike Godwin and co are lawyers, and they've said that we can use the WMF logos freely outside the mainspace; so that's what we'll do (actually, keep doing:D). It'd be nice to get a full and formal statement in writing into OTRS or a mailing list archive, but the message is clear. There's precious little to gain from arguing that the legal expertise of any or all of wikipedia's users is more significant than that of its legal counsels, because that's simply not the case. Happy‑melon 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really concerned whether the foundation gives us permission to use the images. My opinion, based on our mission for free content, is that we should not be using a non-free logo on our main page or on user pages. We don't accept other nonfree images "with permission" and we shouldn't accept these either. So I'm not very concerned about brand identity. I am interested to see Mike Godwin's actual comments, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also waiting for clarity from Mike or someone else with the WMF, but if the response amounts to: "Wikipedians can you these on Wikipedia, but they are unfree everywhere else", then I largely agree with Carl. The inclusion of unfree images in the free encyclopedia is potentially a giant "gotcha" for reusers, and we should limit these unfree images in much the same way we restrict other unfree images, i.e. to what is useful and necessary, and exclude things that are frivilous and purely decorative. Dragons flight (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry is 100% spot on. I'll tell you what is frivolous, these absurd concerns about nothing. There is no gotcha. The rational solution is not to distribute non-article related space. Why the heck does anyone need meta-related stuff? Obviously, the user accounts don't get distributed, so why the userpages? Once again, this is nothing more than worrying for the sake of worrying by people making Stallman-esque arguments about theoretical freedom. Even if we are to be concerned about theoretical freedom, it doesn't matter since userspace is not article space, thus it doesn't directly impact the mission of the encyclopedia. Someone needs to close this as "unneeded drama." --Dragon695 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we make more free content available? A retreat from free-content seems a bad way for Wikipedia to progress. Don't forget that the aim of the project is to create a free encyclopaedia, not just an encyclopaedia. It is bad practice to shy away, in any fashion, from open-source and free-content principles. Sam Korn(smoddy) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophically we should be aiming to include as little non-free content as possible. Yes, it's probably true that we don't have to -- but we really should. That dictum is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. There aren't legal issues here, and it's pretty asinine to suggest there are. But freedom should be an object wherever possible not least because it is good practice to emphasise freedom of content -- and it is similarly asinine to suggest there is an over-riding consideration of any type that would merit ignoring that principle. Sam Korn(smoddy) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are these images nonfree? Then they don't belong on userpages. There is no drama. I'm not sure I'm ok with all of this "Let's just ignore the pesky NFCC policy" attitude. --Kbdank71 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are, under any definition of the term, "non-free". They have precisely the status of all those "Wikipedia-only" images we used to have and (rightly) got rid of. Sam Korn(smoddy) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not free, yes. But it's only not free to non-Wikimedia entities. The template on the Commons now clearly states that "Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission, except for use on any page of a Wikimedia Foundation project" (their emphasis, not mine). Clearly, the Wikimedia copyright is not being negatively affected by having their logo in the default viewing schema of all of their main projects. Y'all are way too paranoid about the freeness of this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's at least have this debate in the right terminology. If it is "not free to non-Wikimedia entities", it is, in fact, simply "not free". Equating "we are allowed to use this" with "it is free for us to use this" is completely wrong. It isn't paranoia -- it's a desire to be consistent and to practise freedom wherever we can. Sam Korn(smoddy) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that userspace is not mirrored. And nobody could argue that because WMF allows use of its logos on its own websites that it has allowed dilution of its trademark status and therfore can't litigate against people who try to use it to imitate WMF or otherwise damage WMF's interests. So there really is nothing more to worry about here. No more need for copyright paranoia and much-ado-about-nothing wikidrama. So please, let's just close this thread as a waste of time and space. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a lot of people are forgetting that userspace is not mirrored. Since the logo is on every page anyway (at least on monobook), then I don't see a reason why it should be barred from userpages. As it goes, surely if we remove it from userpages we should remove the logo from the top left of userpages too? That would be just going much, much too far. aseninet/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question for the more knowledgeable. I do not know if I remember correctly but I thought I saw in the past where editors were able to modify the logo to fix a perceived error. If that is true is that edit released GDFL and if it is how is that copyrightable. Even if the Foundation officially adopted logo would it still be released GDFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When logos are uploaded, they are specifically exempted from the GFDL and have their copyright transferred to the Foundation. Sam Korn(smoddy) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and Jerry are simply mistaken about the mirroring. We do distribute dumps that include userspace (and in fact all namespaces). Reusers can choose not to use that information, but some do, and {{userpage}} (for example), exists in recognition that userpages also get mirrored on non-Wikimedia sites. In answer to Asenine, the only elements that aren't mirrored in database dumps are user interface elements such as logos in the upper right, so those are perhaps the only bit that can be considered irrelevant to that consideration. Dragons flight (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism only accounts
Moved from WT:AIV to request wider input.
I am encountering more and more instances were vandals are being reported, and blocked, as "vandalism only accounts" when they have made a handful of edits. In many cases these accounts have not being properly warned. There seems to be a number of users and admin who have interpreted "vandalism only account" to include any account where all the edits are vandalism even if the total number of edits is only a handful, and consider this grounds circumventing the usual warning escalation process. Of course, the problem with this is that the initial contributions of almost every new vandal are all vandalism, so fall under the "vandalism only account" definition and the warning circumvention. It would be useful to get other opinions :on this. TigerShark (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly an issue I see. Too many RC patrollers use descriptions such as "vandslism after final warning", "vandalism only account", and "vandalism directly after release of a block." Now, sometimes, this may be true, but it appears the current thought by RC patrollers is that using these sort of descriptions may automatically be blocked by admins. Giving false or misleading comments in an effort just to get a user/IP blocked, is serious. If it's true, I'm all for it. But if it's just an effort to get a block, then I'm against it. Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my response to TigerShark at their talkpage; sometimes there are factors that are not apparent in dry text. For instance, it is now the weekend - in the UK it is early Sunday morning and in the US it is late afternoon to mid evening. It is Saturday night and young people are getting on the internet and having fun, and some may be minded to vandalise a top 10 site which allows anonymous editing... a string of vandal edits across a diverse range of subjects (no non subject areas, just the articles) can be indicative of someone who is up for teh lulz only. Vandal fighters (reporters and admins alike) sometimes get a sense of who is editing with no intent to ever contributing usefully, and it can be frustrating to have to allow someone to prove beyond all doubt that they are only here to disrupt before acting. Do we (and I specifically mean the admins who act) ever get it wrong? Surely, yes, but hopefully we are right so much more often to have a big net gain to the encyclopedia.
That said, earlier I was declining most reports and my last block before this comment was to a school ip regarding vandalism that was some time ago... for 24 hours... it will have expired before school re-opens on Monday...
It ain't perfect - just like people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the contribs and warnings of any account before I block it, regardless of what the RC patroller has written. However, I will happily also block accounts with only a few edits, and few warnings if it is clear that they are only here to vandalise. It's a balance. Black Kite 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Black Kite here - if an account has only caused vandalism, and they've had sufficient warning, I see no reason not to give an indefinite block. After all, if the user wants to contribute seriously at a future date, they can create a new account once the autoblock has expired. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, because BlackKite mentions them having had some warnings. Don't get me wrong, if an account vandalises after a couple of warnings (including some form of final warning), then I would completely agree with a block (initially of 24 hours) - even if they had made only 3-4 edits. The issue is bypassing the warning escalation and the block escalation, by using the "vandalism only account" definition because those 3-4 edits were the account's only contributions. TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how many pages would a user have to move to "HAGGAR" before you think it would be appropriate to consider blocking them as a possible vandalism-only account? How many warnings should/must they be given before they can be blocked? Keep in mind that most auto-warning software won't issue more than one warning every 10 seconds, and Grawp can move pages at the rate of about one every 5 seconds. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far. Just to clarify, the issue I am raising here is that the warning escalation process is often being ignored because all of an account's edits are vandalism, even if it is only half a dozen in a short period of time. It is also correct that such accounts are getting indef blocked. There are good reasons why we have the escalation process for warnings and also for extending blocks for repeat offenders (rather than going straight to an indef block) - as pointed out above, an indef blocked user is only actually autoblocked for 24 hours anyway (vandal or otherwise). My main concern is that we seem to be significantly circumventing policy and usual practice by use of the "vandalism only account" definition. It would perhaps not be too bad if the definition covered the occassional account, but the issue here is that it seems to cover almost every single new vandal/test account because the first few edits by almost every new vandalism account are vandalism/tests. If we start blocking these without the usual warning escalation and start blocking them indefinitely, then we are pretty much doing that for every vandal account - which, I would suggest, is a very significant change to policy/practice - not one that I completely disagree with, but one that should be discussed. Looking forward to any further thoughts. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally will only block a user at AIV if: They've had a level 4 warning and continued to vandalize past that, OR it's an account (not an IP) that very clearly isn't here to help - repeated creation of nonsense/attack pages, long string of vandalism that goes faster than we can revert, etc. If they don't meet one of these two, I leave an {{AIV}} comment. I have, too, noticed that admins have been a little too trigger happy of late. Just today, an IP had been given only two real warnings and a "that was your third vandal edit, I'm reporting you" and was blocked. IP's definitely need at least three warnings before we block them, unless there's an extensive history of vandalism, which in this case the block log was empty. Hersfold(t/a/c) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest to having seen this, too. I personally am pretty strict when reporting vandals, but I will rarely start at anything higher than a level two warning. I'll only start at a level three warning if there have been several instances of blatant vandalism that was reverted without warning, or if the vandalism is particularly serious. Only in extreme cases would I ever give an only warning. In fact, I've only ever done that with this user, who made a personal attack (against a person with an identity disclosed in the edit) that required oversight.
But what I'm getting at here is that I, for pretty much 99% of cases, follow warning escalation. This is, in my interpretation, the correct way to go about things. — scetoaux(T|C) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember from when I first became an admin, I followed the example of many other administrators who would indef-block a newly created account if their only edits were vandalism, and if they had been warned that what they were doing was wrong, and then continued. Lots of new users make testing edits... some make semi-innocuous ones, and others make more vandlism-like edits. Once they've made their first tests, though, and if they've been warned that you can't do that on Wikipedia, I remember pretty consistently seeing that if the behaviour continued, they would be indefinitly blocked. Perhaps we are not assuming good faith in them, but if someone truly makes a few first test edits that are vandalism, but wants to be a constrictive editor, conceptually they'd cease once they were warned about it. If not, they appear to just be there for disruption. What that meant to say, however, was that I learned that attitude by watching, whether or not it was actually the best way. Just some thoughts... I definitly think that this is an important issue that should be addressed, so that there is consistently, and so that we both stop disruptive editors from messing with Wikipedia and don't needlessly block those who could be productive contributors. -- Natalya 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'm one of the people who WILL report an IP if I warn them, check their contribs, and find nothing but vandalism. Here's my thinking: One, if a user comes in here to screw around without an account, and bops around from page to page for half-an-hour putting "Barney is TEH GAYYYY!!!!!11!!1!" and the like, I highly doubt that they're warming up their typing fingers for a nice long session of productive editing. Second: Blocks are preventative, yes? If it's RECENT vandalism (and yes, I'm sure that if you go back into my contribs you'll easily find instances where they weren't recent at all--I'll get to that in a minute) then the best way to stop them is a short block. Third: IMHO, it's probably BITE-ier to block a registered account than an IP, under these circumstances--IPs. after all, are much more transitory identifiers, and if a user screws up under one IP, he can always redeem himself, if he's so inclined, once his DHCP lease expires. A named account, though, will always carry that block. Finally--yes, there's an element of frustration here. I HAVE been known to report non-recent attacks, simply based on the following thought process: oh, here's an obvious vandal edit...warn...let's see what else they've been up to...ten other bad edits? WTF?? (clicks AIV bookmark). I try to keep that to a minimum, but as I'm sure everyone will wholeheartedly agree, vandal-fighting is tedious and frustrating. Sometimes, you vent a little...and in this case, by "you", I mean, "me". Done now....Gladys J Cortez 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so thick that you need multiple chances to understand that replacing a page with 'YOU'RE A FAGGOT!' is wrong, I don't want you here.HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends somewhat upon the type of vandalism. I rarely block at all, but yesterday I blocked as vandalism-only a site that had made 2 repeated serious BLP attack pages in 24 hours and nothing else. Sometime we need to send a very strong message. Usually , though we don't--we want to encourage people who are playing around--even playing around foolishly & harmfully as in the above example--to come back and work constructively. I check back on the accounts, ip or named, that I have sent serious warnings to, and very few of them have ever come back and done more damage. DGG (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree that we want to encourage the play-around-ers to come back and edit productively, the question that pops up in my skeptical little heart is "...but seriously, do you think they will?" To me, if you have sincerely good intentions, you're likely to start off in a manner that demonstrates them; if you start off in a joking, screw-around manner, the message you're sending is I don't take this place, or the work that's done here, seriously. And those are the users who concern me. (Is there, other than a slight reluctance to AGF, anything fundamentally flawed in this view?)Gladys J Cortez 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly understand where you are coming from Gladys, I do tend to think that that is a flawed point of view. Any of us who have done vandalism patrol are obviously committed to this project and take it rather seriously. This makes it more difficult for us to consider the mindset of those who fall within that enormous universe of people who don't take it seriously for whatever reason. Such people might include a 14 year old who vandalizes for laughs with her friends; but who in a couple of years might be doing research for a high school project, learn something interesting that isn't on Wikipedia, and want to insert it. Or it might include two very smart friends I went out for drinks with last week, both highly educated professionals who are contemptuous of Wikipedia and might (for all I know) make nonsense anonymous edits when they are drunk late at night; but who might come around in the end and start contributing some of their considerable knowledge to the project.
Sure, there are a lot of vandals who will never be anything but that, but we should also remember that most of the rest of the world does not take Wikipedia so seriously and that that's hardly a sin. Rather than perma-blocking a new account after a few unhelpful edits, we would do better to take the high road by continually warning the user and blocking only after the last warning has been received, preferably for a short period of time. Who knows, maybe some of those folks will be impressed by the commitment so many have to the project—sometimes when reverting vandalism within seconds I can't help but think that the newbie vandal must be somewhat amazed at how quickly their damage was undone—and will feel some contrition after wrecking the work of others and only being met in response with relatively polite notes to stop their behavior. Even if only 1 in 100 reacts that way, and even if only half of those go on to make positive contributions, isn't that utterly worth it? We should be thinking of Wikipedia as a project that will last for 10, 20, or even 100 years, and in order to keep it going we will need a steady stream of new volunteers. Instead of thinking of new vandal users as bad folks trying to break the 'pedia (even though some of them will be that), it's better if we think of them as people who have come far enough to hit the "edit" button and who might be converted into productive editors. Indef blocking every new account that makes a few vandal edits or blocking IP's without giving them a final warning do not strike me as effective long-term strategies, and we lose very little (basically just time and a bit of extra effort) by being courteous and assuming good faith till we're practically blue in the face.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace puts it very well. Unfortunately, it is also possible to go blue in the face trying to convince people who have the other attitude, best summed up by the comment further up in the thread: "If you're so thick [insert random vandal edit] I don't want you here." It is a misunderstanding of the many reasons people have for experimenting, and the wide range in ages, which impacts on the way they experiment. Also, many people experiment with the warnings, and test to see if they really will get blocked. That should be considered, though the best advice if you end up testing a new account to destruction, is to get a new one, and start off by admitting that you were editing under a previous account. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question of "to indef or not to indef" appears regularly at WT:AIV. the most recent such conversation is the three threads starting here: [3]. It might be worth a read for those interested in this topic. Part of that thread goes into "vandalism" vs. "test" edits; I agree that we should extend good faith in differentiating between the two. My comments below are for accounts that I judge to be "vandalism".
Indef blocking an account that has, so far, been used only for vandalism (as opposed to test edits), without the 4-level warning sequence, is by far the most efficient use of our time. Being blocked indef does not give you cancer, or prevent your graduation from college, or go in your "permanent record". It is not "unfair". It protects the encyclopedia. For the tiny (and it is tiny) percentage of people who want another chance, there's {{unblock}}, there's {{2ndchance}}, and there's the option of creating a new account when the autoblock expires. Read the mediawiki pages used for blocked accounts; it's extremely gentle and AGF'y.
Let's take Bigtimepeace's guesstimate; let's say 1 in 100 indef blocked users would have eventually contributed constructively. You have to balance that against the extra time it take editors to report, and admins to re-block, the other 99 vandals we've given a free second chance to. I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who vandalizes several pages, and would have turned things around after a 4th warning or a short block, and yet still can't be bothered to request unblocking. In fact, that's the perfect way to identify that 1%: people who request unblocking, and are willing to jump thru the hoop of {{2ndchance}}. I suggest that everyone who is concerned that we are indef blocking potentially good contributers patrol the unblock request category, and hand out second chances to those you think are not a lost cause. But it makes no sense to to me to block an account that is 99% sure to be an unrepentant vandal for 24 hours, only to block them for longer next time. --barneca (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are those who due to ignorance or youthfulness, don't get it, and think vandalising is a big lark. What we have to make clear is that anyone, if they later become serious, can start over with a new account. To that end, the actual block message should never send signals that someone is permanently verboten. We have banning for that. Carcharoth (talk)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
It seems pretty clear to me, and unblocking is prominently mentioned. I can't find the mediawiki message right now and have to run (surely someone can add a link here for me?), but it is very gentle, very easy to read. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The visible bit of MediaWiki:Blockedtext is easy to read, but click the three "show" links and then see how large the message gets. And then try reading and understanding all that without giving up and walking away. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument hinges on the fact that blatant vandals can become productive members of the community. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence to suggest such a rosy outlook. It's a little naïve (and I mean that will all due respect). EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) If they can't even be bothered to read the unblock instructions, then isn't giving up and walking away forever exactly what we want them to do? I don't know, those instructions look really well thought out and clear to me. The only real problem is they're long. We're trying to identify people who, in spite of vandalizing, can be turned into productive editors. Are these the type of people who aren't going to read something because it's long? --barneca (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is one way to find out. Start a new account, get blocked, try actually going through the various stages of getting unblocked, and see what the success rate is. Or don't even bother with the first step - just asked to be blocked and then sit down and actually try getting unblocked and see what you think of how things look and work from the other side. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed experiment; your average Wikipedia administrator is going to be far, far more familiar with the Wikipedia system than your run-of-the-mill vandal. You'd have to introduce a new person to Wikipedia for the express purpose of blocking them and having them request an unblock for it to be effective. EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Is there any chance some of us lowly editors could get some help with our problems? I mean isn't that what this noticeboard is supposed to be for? There are several issues below that need attention and in the last few hours all of the edits to this page have been either this mindnumbing conversation or best wishes to an outgoing admin. Little help? -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} Most experinaced vandal patrolers will agree with me, there are two types of new user vandalism: Type A and Type B users. Type A are your classic noobs who have no clue what they are doing, but their edits are considered vandalism. Type B is what the Vandal only Account (VoA). their edits clearly show a malice in their editing patterns, contain the standard vandal insults, are un-communicative, and ignore warnings. Type A, will normally become good users, while type B is blocked on sight. βcommand 2 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are inexperienced vandal patrollers, who are not aware of this distinction, blocking type A on sight based on observing others blocking type B on sight? Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
inexperienced vandal patrollers don't block; admins block. I, and everyone I am aware of at WP:AIV, look to see whether it's type A or B. Watch the action at WP:AIV sometime; lots of reports get declined. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I see precious little evidence that we're promoting idiots to adminship. Type B accounts should be blocked on sight, and often times, you can see the pattern (and where it's going) well before they've garnered a substantial number of edits. EVula// talk // ☯ // 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor registers with a name "lkusflsfksibniwbncibiwckn kbnwec8kcbscdkbsd", and then makes 25 bad faith vandalistic edits. How many warnings do you want them to get? Do you want them blocked for vandalism, or blocked for username violation? And what kind of vandalism are we talking about; adding "dan is gay" to my userpage (not serious), or blp vio "x was accused but not convicted of having sex with children"? (very serious)? Just checking. Please disregard this, Dan Beale-Cocks 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already typed a response to this, so I'm not going to disregard it. :P Agreed, sometimes the full "path" of warnings aren't needed. I've blocked IPs for 3 hours without warning before, simply because I could tell that it was a one-off vandalism spree done by some bored kid who was still online. The short block killed his fun, and minimized damage. Would a warning have worked? Maybe, but a block definitely worked, and I've got better things to do than coddle vandals. EVula// talk // ☯ // 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes just following them around playing "rollback" with them works better. They get bored and give up and go away, and you avoid filling in any paperwork! :-) (Only for non-serious vandalism, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, sometimes just using rollback works. I don't have the time to follow them around all day, though; if it's obvious they're not going to be productive, why allow them to continue vandalizing? EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an account has only bad faith edits it can be blocked on sight without warnings. There is simply no point in allowed a disruptive user who has never been constructive to continue. The block notice tells them what they did wrong, but they already know what they did wrong because it is only bad faith edits that get this kind of block. If they truly repent then they can use the unblock template, or in a day or two the autoblock will expire and they can create a new account.
Now it is true that not all users who need a block should be reported to AIV which deals with a very specific type of problem user with very specific criteria. As to if AIV should be used to report vandal only accounts that have not been warned is something for WT:AIV to decide, but it is our current and best practice to block these users on sight. (1 == 2)Until 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with EVula on this one. AIV only rarely deals (in my experience at least) with users that haven't been sufficiently warned. Of course, administrators sometimes step in before this is even needed and block the accounts when it is clear the only intent is to disrupt the workings and readings of Wikipedia. I do this, the blocking should suffice when reasonable grounds for a block is visible. If this is to be changed, WT:AIV is the best venue for that. On a slightly different point, how come some IPs get blocked as vandalism only accounts? Surely that's only supposed to be used on clear, and indefinitely blocked registered users. Rudget (Help?) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes admins remove names from report boards such as AIV or UAA because they are following the protocols for that boards to much. Some blocks are just common sense, and even if the board requires a full set of warnings and a court order, should just be blocked anyways. (1 == 2)Until 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe exprienced admins can often recognize a vandalism only account from only a few edits. For example look for an apparent understading of how Wikipedia works unusual for someone new but making only harmful edits, or new accounts continuing the pattern of previously blocked vandals. I agree indef block as vandalism only account should be made only to registerd accounts, and if ther is reasonable benifit of a doubt that the account is just a newbie testing things out something less drastic is in order. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to give every gwap vandal 4 warnings before blocking now? βcommand 2 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. What point are you trying to make? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly heartened by the answers above, but can't say I'm especially surprised either (I think my view is the minority one among those who deal with vandalism, but oh well). Yes, it's often easy to spot folks who are here to vandalize, and blocking sure does stop them. Simply giving a warning often stops them too though, and if it's their first warning it includes a "welcome" message that is a bit nicer (and probably more surprising) than a "you're blocked" notice. Anyone who does recent changes patrol and leaves warnings can attest to the fact that very often the first warning (be it after the first, third, or fifth vandal edit) is often the last. God knows how many IP's or new accounts went on a mini-vandalism spree, were warned once, and then never vandalized again (e.g. this edit I made two edits ago). If we can deter a bunch of vandalism (and I think it's inescapable that we do) without leaping to the block button, why not do that?
To those who would say "but why not just block them instead?" I would say the following. First off, putting the smack down with a block right off the bat might actually encourage the person to come back and vandalize again ("I'll show Captain Admin!", that thing Newton said, etc.) whereas a simple "Hi there! Thanks for stopping by, please don't do that again" is a rather boring reply and may cause the vandal to throw in the towel since they only provoked a mild mannered response (of course many times it doesn't, but I'm trying to think against the grain here). Also, while it's true that a lot of AIV reports are declined and rightfully so (which is good), it's also true that a lot of crap AIV reports are made which is probably partially a function of how block-happy we are (not good). If admins are willing to indef a new account after two "Bob is gay!" edits, why wouldn't new recent changes patrollers assume that they should report an IP vandal to AIV after deleting a couple of things from an article and without warning them first? Similarly, anyone who has done RC patrol has seen any number of crap "rv vandalism" edits—situations where vandal patrollers revert IP contributions practically on sight without taking the extra 5-10 seconds to actually read what the IP did.
I've done a good amount of RC patrol and think it's an important part of what we do here (unfortunately), but sometimes I worry that we worry so much about the barbarians at the gate (which, some editors will readily admit, can come to mean practically all anonymous users) that we develop an unhealthy siege mentality. I'm staking out a fairly extreme position here in part because I believe it and in part because I think it needs to be said, but I would hope those who advocate the "block on sight, screw the warnings" approach see how that method can have real drawbacks and that what I am saying here is not completely insane. There's far too much of an us-against-the-world approach in some of the comments above, and an underlying tone of vandals-are-bad-people-who-can't-be-reformed which I find troublesome. Don't worry though, I'll go off and block some vandals in the next 24 hours to atone for being such a weak-kneed appeaser. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the best-argued and most coherently considered piece of opinion I've read on wikipedia for many months, and really, I urge people to take serious note of it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recent sock of a vandal has been using Twinkle for disruptive editing (by reverting legitimate edits as vandalism). See [these contribs]. Is their anyway we could limit Javascript based applications such as Twinkle to established users?--UrbanRose 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyone can edit their own monobook file. Perhaps Twinkle could disable itself if the user doesn't have X number of edits, though... EVula// talk // ☯ // 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Twinkle from Gadgets, at least for now. While a sock could conceivably add Twinkle, this creates an edit trail, and users could conceivably track such changes by watching Monobook changes. Another concern hat I've heard raised is that it's impossible to disable the Twinkle gadget for users who have abused it (we can protect monobook.js if necessary, but can't change their gadget preferences). I welcome any discussion regarding this, and whether it should stay removed or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, too easily an abused too that would be impossible to remove without blocking. MBisanztalk 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent decision. I've been wondering for a few days where the best place was to make the suggestion to remove Twinkle from gadgets. In this particular case, of course, it wouldn't have helped (blocking was the only answer), but in general this is spot on. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with new users using Twinkle, so I whole-heartedly support this. EVula// talk // ☯ // 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as it can substantially limit vandalism without any great cost. (It's easy enough to manually add it to monobook). --Bfigura(talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remember the dot re-added TW to the gadgets list with the reasoning that it was "now fixed in Internet Explorer"... I'm not sure he understood it was removed due to abuse. I've re-removed it and left him a message informing him of this discussion. krimpet✽ 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initially objected to add twinkle to gadgets, per the apparent lack of moderation functionality, so I'm fine with it removed from gadgets. →AzaToth 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above also. It never should have been there in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with it in gadgets there is no way to stop abuse of the tool. Where was the original discussion to have it added to gadgets? Tiptoetytalk 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could have the Twinkle gadget automatically disable itself if the user's monobook.js is protected. That would allow it to be controlled without requiring users to understand JavaScript. Outright removing the gadget is not the only option we have. —Remember the dot(talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I fully agree. This is a temporary solution to the problem, and can easily be undone if there's a better way to handle it. But until then, I think the gadget should stay removed. Ral315 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That only safe guards against users who have already abused the tool. I'd rather it not be abused at all. EVula// talk // ☯ // 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to prevent Twinkle from being abused. Greater availability of Twinkle should actually have a positive impact on vandal control because more users will have the vandal-fighting tools. —Remember the dot(talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just block the user, rather than disabling Twinkle? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disabling Twinkle; any user can still install it. However, the concerns about allowing anyone to surreptitiously enable it are very, very valid, and this isn't the first time I've seen them voiced. EVula// talk // ☯ // 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment; I'm on wikibreak. Twinkle's code is open-source and publicly available, so anyone can implement it unrevokably via, say, Greasemonkey. The only way to forcibly stop Twinkle abuse is by blocking, and that's probably the approach that we should use. Perhaps I should edit MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown to add "Abusing editing tool" or some such. We should re-add Twinkle to the list of Gadgets, perhaps with a warning. Nihiltres{t.l} 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have code ready that will disable potentially abusive gadgets like Twinkle if the user's monobook.js is protected. This will give us finer, though as Nihiltres pointed out, not perfect, defenses against problematic users. —Remember the dot(talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just block them. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best bet mate, some times a person is truly just testing out Twinkle and they do not mean harm. Obviously this one did mean harm. But we do not know that of all. A block is not something that should be used for something like this unless we know. The best is Remember the dot's suggestion. Rgoodermote 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nihiltres, I think that the issue is that simply checking a box in Gadgets installs Twinkle, without knowledge of how/what its functionary is, is the issue. It's not the same as if someone is mucking about in the monobook and figures out what javascripts are for. So therein lies the potential for abuse if it remains a gadget. To be fair, I haven't noticed a rise in Twinkle abuse since it was listed in gadgets. People will abuse what they can not matter the circumstances. Keegantalk 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty hard to be unsure about what a button marked "Rollback" does. But if you want, we can have a big fat disclaimer next to the Twinkle gadget. —Remember the dot(talk) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoroughly blunt opinion: if someone doesn't know how to install Twinkle manually, they're more likely to screw something up severely. I see the installation as a nice little valve to make sure that Twinkle users have at least some measure of intelligence (or, to sound less dickish, a measure of proficiency). The chief problem with Twinkle is that people are using it to edit, which isn't what it was developed for; it's goal (as far as I know) was to help streamline some of the more complicated processes we have (such as an easy way of reporting users to AIV), but editors should still know how to do those things without the tool. EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, to the both of you, the point of my last line is that most Twinkle misuse is not by accident or misunderstanding but of intent. I agree with EVula of the goal of automated tools. VandalProof, the forerunner to Twinkle came along about six months after I started editing. I had already learned how to make reports by hand and that eased the process of minding which tab I'm on in my browser, which page I'm on, and is my markup correct (I truly suck at anything related to markup, see my typo above. I'm surprised you all let me edit.) Twinkle is a "net positive" but will be gamed, I support removing it from the gadgets. You can put a big disclaimer, but that won't prevent misuse. Keegantalk 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the contributions Urban Rose has linked to, I see lots of page-move vandalism but no abuse of Twinkle. The edits the vandal made using Twinkle appear to be valid reversions of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.245 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is vandalizing then block them - don't deprive the rest of us of a useful tool. Bloody annoying and inconsiderate in my opinion. The comment about installing it manually being some sort of intelligence test is downright patronising - one doesn't, and shouldn't, need any understanding of how those wretched monobook things work in order to be a productive and intelligent editor. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be limited to autoconfirmed user, by using some JavaScript like wgUserGroups.join(' ').match(/\bautoconfirmed\b/). — Dispenser 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? How many people's preferences did we just forcibly modify because one user (a blocked user I add) abused something? Shall we limit pagemoves to admin-only, now, too? Why don't we just lock down the whole site, to prevent vandalism? If a user is blatantly abusing the project, we just block them and be done with it. The only permanent damage here is the damage we've done to ourselves. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the idea of limiting it to autoconfirmed users. The code for this is simple, the requirement will deter all but the most persistent vandals who are determined to get their hands on the tool no matter what, and it will let regular users have the tool without trouble. If a user abuses it and refuses to stop, then just block them. —Remember the dot(talk) 04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on the twinkle talk page about integrating MediaWiki roll-back into twinkle, this would disable a lot of the abuse potential as a gadget, as it would remove the revert function from anyone without roll-back permission. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have slept on this, and am still angry about the removal of this gadget. The removal just shows the contempt which some admins have for the rest of us. Why not disable all editing for everyone because some people misuse editing tools? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone is vandalizing and does not respond to appropriate warnings then block them - don't punish the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is still usable by anyone with an account with our without its presence in the gadgets. ViridaeTalk 11:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So removing it from gadgets has zero protective effect, and just pisses off those of us who don't want to fiddle with monobook stuff. Great. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle isn't that hard to install manually. A notice to users not just removing it & leave us wondering woudl have been nice, but it's not that restrictive. I has only quoted it out of my monobook as I wanted to keep my settings so I had it a bit easier but a one line copy & paste then refreshign is not that hard!. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So like I said, zero protective effect by removing the gadget. I have never found any monobook stuff easy, it is obscure and fiddly and never seems to work straight off, and you end up with a page full of weird stuff that you have absolutely no understanding of. Making things harder for honest editors is about the worst possible thing to do if you are serious about promoting good editing and discouraging vandalism. If someone is misusing editing tools, then they can be warned and blocked as appropriate, or is that too complicated for our lords and masters? DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that after all the positive response to making Twinkle a gadget, one admin decided to remove this because of one vandal. I really don't know what else to say about that. Regarding the idea in general, Twinkle's edits are just as easily undone as any other. Vandals making use of it has no effect on how we fight them, so removing the gadget does nothing to protect Wikipedia. It just punishes everyone else. In addition, all gadgets capable of producing edits directly can be used for malicious purposes. Why not remove popups too then, or even hotcat? Stop trying to prevent malice using blanket restrictions. We're fighting vandalism just fine the way things are. Equazcion•✗/C •12:02, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
PS I just realized this is the same admin who's been going around full-protecting templates "just to be safe" [4] (all of which were undone shortly afterwards). This, too, needs to be undone. As User:Remember the dot points out above, making Twinkle more widely available can only have a net-positive effect. It's a vandalism-fighting tool, and regardless of the one person (or few people) we see abusing it, far more use it as intended. Equazcion•✗/C •12:28, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Equazcion. This seems to have been an overreaction, and should be reverted as soon as possible. Removing it from gadgets doesn't fix the problem at all, and simply inconveniences legitimate users. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not wheelwar about this :) I think that blocking the users abusing twinkle is like using a big hammer to stop a fly (just look at the few occurrences that happened last week), I therefore see the point of not having it as a gadget. I however agree that removing it unilaterally was a terrible idea (think of all the users that are discovering it is no longer working and wonder why). I still think we need to have the ability to turn twinkle off if needed, maybe by adding a variable to the monobook? -- lucasbfrtalk 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed something, but where was the discussion (and consensus) for putting Twinkle in the Gadgets in the first place? EVula// talk // ☯ // 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there was any. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that people are upset that Twinkle's been removed from gadgets; if there were a way to disable it on a user-by-user basis, or notify everyone who had it installed that I was removing it, I would've done so. However, there was never a consensus, as far as I can tell, for adding it to Gadgets, and given that it's easily added to Special:Mypage/monobook.js (details at WP:TWINKLE), I think that the benefits of this removal outweigh the problems. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle was added back around when gadgets first began. There was a brief discussion about Twinkle here. The benefits of the removal definitely do not outweigh the problems. If this were a simple removal of the preferences option, that wouldn't be so terrible. But you've effectively pulled the rug out from under all the people who already had Twinkle installed through the gadget, and there's no telling how many that was -- all because of a single vandal. And again, people having access to Twinkle doesn't make it any easier to vandalize or any harder to roll back said vandalism. Just because someone uses a certain method to for malicious purposes doesn't mean we then take it away from everyone. People can vandalize articles a million other ways -- such as using the edit button. Again this needs to be reverted immediately. Equazcion•✗/C •18:58, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Site wide matters that affect all users in such a sweeping way are not the provenance of any one lone admin to decide, ever. The gadget page should be brought back to the pre-Ral change status quo for a proper discussion of this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break [Twinkle]
After reading this I have gotten the conclusion that there is an logical consensus that there is no net gain to have TW removed from gadgets, so I made the decission to re-add it. →AzaToth 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - unfortunately it does not appear to be working for me. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this link will shew it - [5]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, and I asked East to reverse the deletion as there was no basis or mandate for any one admin to unilaterally decide this for all Wikipedia users. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't know that page had been deleted, have restored it. →AzaToth 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I know that this is not the first time that Twinkle as a gadget has been referenced as being a potential problem. The fact that there was practically no discussion to "install" it in the first place compounds this situation (I could probably look for the diff if I tried hard enough...). I'm strongly of the opinion that it needs to stay out of the available gadgets. EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Addendum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive140#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, while not about Twinkle as a gadget, is highly critical of the effects of too-new users utilizing Twinkle for all their edits. Quite frankly, I don't like lowering the bar of entry for Twinkle use to the point where someone can only function on the site by using Twinkle; such users are bound to screw up, and screw up hard. (I've already seen tons of crappy username reports to WP:UAA that are done with Twinkle by largely ignorant editors) EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#Twinkles Gone Wild is another somewhat relevant topic, although much more hilariously named than the one above. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which was about someone who had it in monobook, and in which you suggested blocking if someone persisted in misusing it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you missed the part about forcibly removing it from someone's monobook was useless as they could enable it via the gadgets. I also didn't present it in the manner that you apparently interpreted it; I was presenting it as evidence that Twinkle abuse is a very real concern. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the gadget so that it will now only work for autoconfirmed users. This is about the same as what we do for other semi-powerful tools such as Special:MovePage.
By the way, protecting a user's monobook.js isn't a perfect solution either. They could just change their skin and add Twinkle to another JavaScript file. They could also make the script work through GreaseMonkey. Or they could just make disruptive edits manually. In short, if a user is being disruptive, then they're probably going to continue to be disruptive even if we revoke Twinkle to the best of our ability. —Remember the dot(talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I consider locking a monobook to be enforcing a decree that the user shouldn't be using a script because they're being disruptive, but still making positive contributions (read: someone whose heart is in the right place, but is too dense to realize that they're screwing up). Yes, it's not a perfect solution for the very reasons you listed, but most of the time, people aren't going to change their theme just to get around it (and they'd promptly be nailed to the wall if they did). As for your change to Twinkle itself... that's a step in the right direction, but I still feel that people who can't edit without Twinkle have no business installing it. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit without twinkle but you apparently think I shouldn't have it either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely lost and unable to do much of anything on here without Twinkle? If not, I'm not discussing you. If so, I am, and I feel that you should spend more time getting familiar with the site without automated tools. I'll readily admit that I'm a total elitist when it comes to this; I've garnered 26k+ edits (including deleted edits) without any automated tools, and feel that I'm a better editor for it. I'm equally willing to admit that it's my opinion, and mine alone. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well able to edit without Twinkle, I also have no understanding and little confidence in editing my monobook, and am very reluctant to try. Gadgets are a boon to editors who do not wish to fart around with their monobooks. You appear to be the only person referring to these alleged people unable to do anything without twinkle. Twinkle as a gadget is useful to many. Editors who abuse any editing tools may be warned, reverted, blocked as appropriate. Removing the gadget (which is what this thread is about) is no substitute for admins just doing their jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from; I never said anything like that, and can't see where I even alluded to it. I'm perfectly aware that I'm the only one stating my opinion, which is why I'm not saying anything along the lines of "everything should be done my way". If you're not comfortable editing your monobook, that's your prerogative, but I feel you'd be a better editor if you address your ignorances (not intended to be an insult, though I can see how it can be interpreted as one). EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
errr - "No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from"? - I have never suggested that you said anything of the sort. Maybe you are hallucinating. As for monobooks - what would make Wikipedia editors better is a reduction in the excessive amount of obscure techy type stuff required for some functionality. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The only reason we call it an automated tool is because it isn't built in to MediaWiki. The undo function, variables, templates, and even the ref tag all perform a kind of automated function. There's no reason to say that use of Twinkle gives people any less experience than another editing function. Reverting vandalism, warning users, and nominating things for deletion are all things that help people learn about Wikipedia, whether they use Twinkle to perform those things or not. Equazcion•✗/C •23:06, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Twinkle has had autoconfim check for a long time now, so such check isn't needed. →AzaToth 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there's no reason to worry about revoking Twinkle. If a user is being disruptive, they should be blocked, no matter what method they're using to vandalize pages. The only situation where revoking twinkle would be useful is when someone is being disruptive unintentionally by using Twinkle, and I don't think we've seen a situation like that yet. If it happens, monobook.js can be protected -- and chances are if the user didn't understand how to use Twinkle, then they won't know about any of the workarounds Remember The Dot suggested. Equazcion•✗/C •22:46, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've removed the redundant autoconfirmed check from the Twinkle gadget. —Remember the dot(talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if anyone is that concerned about Twinkle being a gadget, they should start a discussion at Village pump proposals, as is likewise the current method for suggesting a new gadget. Equazcion•✗/C •22:49, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
This is a more general issue than Twinkle. Many gadgets are liable to abuse, the find and replace of wikiEd could be a right pain, but rather than removing them all would it not be better for admins to be able to lock out a users gadgets, and possibly protect all there .js pages with a switch? Treated the same way as blocking; Allow free use, if abused then they are locked out (probably longer periods e.g. 1 week minimum) this would reduce the potential for abuse and allow the rest of us to get on with editing. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: how about we start a discussion at VPP for adding it, since as near as I can tell, there wasn't one in the first place? EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do the same thing for every other gadget on Gadgets? For that matter, was there a discussion for Gadgets to be added? I never even knew the feature existed until yesterday when I found this thread. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VPP is the wrong place and near useless anyway as no one watches it relative to the size of the actual Wikipedia editor population; you'll get at best a tiny, tiny subset of the population there. Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals is the right venue apparently but appears dead too. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia noticeboards suffer from the same problem - none are used by more than a tiny subset of editors. The Admin noticeboards are used by a tiny proportion of admins, and an even smaller proportin of non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril Lokshin's proposal at Wikipedia:Governance reform is a step to change that problem. Too many decisions of major importance and impact are made by too many tiny often self-appointed groups, in tiny little venues. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - looks interesting and makes some good points. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TWINKLE should not be a gadget. If TWINKLE is a gadget, we can't prevent people from using it. If it's installed in monobook.js, we can at least take a reasonable step toward doing so, by protecting their monobook.js. When TWINKLE was disabled as a gadget, I did this to prevent Heliac (talk·contribs) from returning and abusing it more. (I also blocked him, but if he comes back and resumes editing, I don't want him to be twinkling all over the place when he does so.)
In addition, I disagree with the idea that TWINKLE should be considered a part of the MediaWiki interface like the undo button is. Perhaps TWINKLE is just an interface for speeding up editing when used correctly, but the way many people use it is as a substitute for understanding policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should Twinkle be left in Gadgets?
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Voting is evil. As EVula, et al. pointed out, this isn't the appropriate venue for this should-be discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, Twinkle doesn't even work unless you are an autoconfirmed user, and we can implement additional restrictions on its use if desired. Second, users should not be forced to deal with any esoteric wikisyntax, including editing JavaScript, in order to perform common tasks. —Remember the dot(talk) 19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By removing it, we are causing disruption - making us as bad as vandals...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose;
I'm opposed, but I'm not convinced that this is the best location to ask this question (though I can't think of a better one). EVula// talk // ☯ // 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's easy enough to install it if you want it, and at least having to put it in your monobook makes it easier to remove from problem users. — iridescent 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't be used by anyone that isn't capable of installing it in a monobook. John Reaves 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough to install. Rudget (Help?) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The monobook.js is an imperfect, but reasonable, and otherwise handy, way to make a first pass at weeding out possibly well-meaning people who will do more harm than good with Twinkle. DuncanHill is the exception that proves the rule. just to be clear, this is saying a nice thing, not a mean thing. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I am continally confused by the uproar over rollback, when Twinkle (in inexperienced hands) does far more damage, and we're currently handing it out like candy. --barneca (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Should whoever opened this poll be slapped with a wikitrout?
Honestly, we seem to have lost the ability to discuss anything these days. Have we now decided that polling is the new consensus??? SpartazHumbug! 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody said it was. It is a way to gauge consensus, though. — scetoaux(T|C) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I was looking through the page history of the Mother article when I realized that, in the past month, it's been subject to some significant vandalism by a wide variety of new and anonymous editors. Looking back through the protection log, I found a number of attempts to try and stem the tide with short-term semi-protects; the most recent expired (not coincidentally) about a month ago. Based on these factors, I went ahead and semi-protected the page indefinitely. Since I made the call outside of the normal WP:RFPP process, though, I thought it best to post it here for the sake of transparency and further review--if anyone feels that the indefinite semi is unwarranted, feel free to shorten or remove it entirely. Thanks! --jonny-mt 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About three vandalism edits a day. Dunno, I think so long as it's not BLP-related, it's not a major concern, but it depends, I suppose. Ral315 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does vandalism of this article pick up around Mother's Day? That might be one explaination, since that's coming up in the US. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of that. It makes sense that the recent spate might be because of the upcoming holiday (which reminds me; I need to order some flowers), but there seems to be a more or less constant level of vandalism thanks to the popular pasttime of dissing matriarchs--a look at almost any point in the history shows vandalistic edits. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to knocking it down to a month or so to see if Mother's Day is indeed the cause or not and then reconsidering indefinite semi-protection if this doesn't do the trick. --jonny-mt 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that history of steady vandalism over time, I can't disagree. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and knocked it down to a month, then, and left a note in the log that the next semi-protect should be indefinite. Thanks for the input, all! --jonny-mt 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jack was blocked a couple of months back now as a self admitted sock of Moby Dick. Once he admitted it, there was only one course of action and that was an indef block. I've been in contact with him by email, and he's very interested in entering into a program of mentorship with me and would like to be unblocked. I did a lot of research into him when I blocked him, and although there were problems with previous accounts of his, the latest Jack Merridew account was actually fairly constructive and was certainly a a net positive for the project. I think with this account, he'd learnt from previous mistakes and although the socking was bad, it does give evidence that he is somewhat reformed. I'd therefore like to unban him and put him on a strict editing restriction as follows;
I'd appreciate thoughts on this, I honestly believe Jack still has a lot to give. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. He would also have to stick by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, but has privately told me he is quite happy to do this. I would be delighted to co-mentor here. His contributions under the Jack Merridew account, ignoring the fact that he was evading a ban, were constructive and I think he was unlucky to run into White Cat again. Quite frankly, he's far less of a POV-pusher than White Cat: t'would be silly to ban one but not the other. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I'd certainly appreciate the help from someone with such good experience with these kinds of users. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Ryan's prepared to give him another shot, I'm happy to go with his judgment (as usual). BencherliteTalk 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - I think the JM account is proof itself that Davenbelle has reformed. Hell, Jack's positive contributions to me suggest he doesn't even need a mentorship. Sceptre(talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I will be glad to give him another chance and possibly add another productive editor to the project. Best of luck Ryan, Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that unblocking/banning him with the above restrictions is the correct course of action, for the reasons stated above. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had positive observations of the Jack Merridew account, and was surprised when he got blocked. I support an unblock, and if Ryan is going to mentor him, that'll be excellent, as I have full confidence in Ryan's judgment. If Moreschi wants to co-mentor, that's a big bonus here. Acalamari 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support under the restrictions stated above (and as if you haven't got enough mentors, I'd be happy to help too). Black Kite 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support so long as he abides by the restrictions above. I've been in constant private contact with him via email. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko) 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My gut instinct here is that he's highly likely to be a good editor now, and we should extend him good faith and another chance. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Practical Question: "Interacting" is pretty vague. If White Cat begins, say, reverting Jack's edits, is Jack allowed to speak up for them? Or is he required to shout "Run Away!" and let it go?Kww (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat. If he goes around interacting with Jack, I would view that as seriously as Jack interacting with White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so optimistic as you all, and I feel I have considerable experience with Davenbelle. I was an arbitrator on his "Moby Dick" arbitration case, have dealt with several subsequent CheckUser investigations, and was the one to ban him, a year ago today. I don't think he has or will change, and I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory. To remind you, Davenbelle was involved in an arbitration case in 2005 in which it was found that he had stalked White Cat, and warned to stop.
What happened? He didn't, and was blocked for harassment of White Cat less than a month later. He was, by the way, engaged in a second arbitration case at the same time as this one, and that one saw him banned from all politics articles, for protracted warring. After his first block, he "left," but almost immediately returned with the sockpuppet Moby Dick, and immediately evaded the arbitration findings by returning to stalking Megaman and White Cat. Of course, a few months later, now in June 2006, we had another arbitration case, "Moby Dick" was found to be Davenbelle, and given a parole to keep him from harassment of White Cat or Megaman. The result? Blocked for a week not long after for harassment. Then? He created an account on Commons, where White Cat is an admin, and soon got himself blocked for another week for harassment. Undeterred, he created another identity, Diyarbakir, to evade the arbitration ruling and harass White Cat again. That account was soon blocked, and as a result, we finally banned Davenbelle. This is when he created "Jack Merridew," and immediately began editing popular fiction articles just when that controversy, involving White Cat, was beginning. And that's not really a surprise: White Cat has two main editing interests—Turkish/Kurdish issues, and TV shows, especially Starfleet. Davenbelle, "Moby Dick," and "Diyarbakir" all mostly edited Turkish/Kurdish articles and stalked White Cat there, but even then, edits like [6] to one of White Cat's Starfleet articles were part of the stalking. Jack Merridew happened to be intensely interested in White Cat's other area of editing, and spent his entire time warring against White Cat's position, and we are to believe this was constructive editing on his part? Now, five arbitrations (that I know about), four identities (that we know about), and three years later, after all that time of concerted and bad-faith stalking, sockpuppeting, and evasion of restrictions across multiple wikis, when he gets caught, not by accident but because he was engaging in the same stalking of the same editor yet again, we are optimistic that he will reform This Time? I think the best thing we could do would be to try to do whatever we can through blocks to break his psychological addition to Wikipedia and conflict, not encourage him back. Dmcdevit·t 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Per Dmcdevit's amazingly accurate argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is WP:BEANS but "Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat." leaves an obvious way for JM to stalk without stalking. He just needs to get ahead of White Cat and do things that will annoy him. The different opinions (I don't know if JM really feels the way he seems to or it's just part of his stalking act) the two editors have on fiction give JM the perfect opportunity. All he has to do is engage in some TTN style activity (like he's done before) and it's guarenteed to annoy White Cat. White Cat will show up afterwords and apparently RP will enforce a restraining order against White Cat. If you're going to unblock, JM needs to be banned from editing anything that's remotely related to Kurds or fiction. I have a feeling he won't feel like editing if he can't work in those two areas, but who knows. Remember that JM has shown the abiltiy to confine himself to subjects not related to White Cat's interests for weeks or months just to avoid looking like a stalker when he starts doing what he really wants. I wouldn't be surprised if he went through a one year fiction/Kurd ban just to then go after Whte Cat. He's already spent three years on this, what's one more. If a one year ban doesn't force him to create another sock puppet, then maybe he's reformed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree only to a conditional fiction ban; he's been very helpful on Dungeons & Dragons articles, which he continued to edit until he was blocked. Given as I have never seen White Cat on articles related to D&D and more on articles related to anime and such, I'd support a topic ban on anime, but not a blanket ban on all fictional-subject articles. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking with the extension of good faith. The latest account and edits appear to be wholly constructive and beneifical, and I am hoping that the unblocking would further lead to a continuation of that. seicer | talk | contribs 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblocking, what DMCDevit said as well as Peregrine Fisher's comment that was meant the other way, "He's already spent three years on this, what's one more." Everyone promises to be good once they are caught (oh, and they are all innocent too) and have punishment put upon them. Upon release, old habits die hard. I don't care for the unblock at all. He doesn't need the Jack Merridew account unblocked when if he truly wanted to edit and build the project, he could just start fresh and let bygones be bygones. But this brings up bygones, so I think we're being trolled. Keegantalk 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can't start fresh, Keegan; that's the problem. His original account is banned and he has a few socks (JM being his most recent and best-behaved), and in all cases White Cat has homed in on him (see this diff). I have to agree with the supporters above when they say he's been a net positive to the project as JM, ban notwithstanding. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko) 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, Jéské, I understand the letter of the law of the banning policy. No contributions of any kind, revert on site, unwelcome. Now in the spirit of the law, if a user truly just wants to edit and move on, we would never know if they were previously banned unless their old patterns of behavior show up. I hope that clarifies my point there. Keegantalk 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that, I think, is that JM has certain very obvious spheres of interest where he contributes constructively (for instance, Dungeons and Dragons articles). A new editor turning up out of the blue, obviously knowledgeable about Wikipedia and editing those articles might as well be waving a big flag saying "I am Jack Merridew", checkusers and blocks will be requested by certain editors, and we'll have another big drama and time-sink that we didn't need to have. Black Kite 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. As has been noted above, this has been going on for years and has included many accounts. Some constructive editing does not grant a free pass for serial harrassment, and I don't see anything that would suggest he has reformed -- he was just less obvious this time. I also agree with Peregrine Fisher, that the proposed restrictions would be too easy to game. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock Jack/David handled himself very well with this recent account. I'll admit, I was a bit pissed off that he had lied to us, especially when some of us came to his defense about the sock accusations, but he could have kept the lie going, but instead he chose to come clean. I know the frustration David has experienced, and while I don't think he made the right choices, it does put those choices into a certain context for me. And yeah, a few years makes a huge difference, and giving someone another chance at this point is more than reasonable. He's being open and honest with us, and is willing to work with us. This is what we want to encourage. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're also going to be watching him like a freakin' hawk, so it's not like he'll be able to get away with anything regarding harassment/stalking of White Cat. There is little to no risk in this unblock. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea popped into my head: if need-be we can also give specific topical bans, if that would put White Cat or other opposers at ease. Such as specific shows, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock No-one but White Cat (who in hindsight was obviously right with his/her accusations against JM) saw a ban-worthy problem in JM. Sockpuppeting is very bad, harrassing other editors is bad, but if JM abides by these unblocking terms as his last chance, which I am sure he will, I just see his net positive increasing. The unblocking terms can also be strengthened if someone thinks they are to lax. – sgeurekat•c 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to support a Conditional Unblock if that were the consensus, but only with a 12 month topic ban on AfD participation and any popular culture which he is known not to like. Though not as disruptive as TTN, I feel further participation in this area would quickly lead to more conflict. However, I do feel he can contribute constructively to areas on Indonesia and he is excellent at formatting and wikifying. otherwise I'd have to oppose. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I will add myself to the mentorship queue as well as we were getting some productive stuff happening before all this happened. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any kind of precedent for a multi-year stalker who has reformed their behaviour? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opportunity to create one. Support unblock, no doubt he will be watched to ensure his behaviour has matured. If we are requiring Jack not to interact with White Cat, however, then we must also require the reverse from White Cate (otherwise there's the possibility of baiting etc). Neıl☎ 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock with Ryan's proposed restrictions. I've had contact with Jack and I really get the sense that he wants to be here for the project. But considering the history, this should be a last chance. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support an unblock in the spirit of AGF. I would prefer if the user was monitored quite closely for a period deemed appropriate though, just in the interests of being sure of Merridew's true intent. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I'm assuming that such "monitoring" (perhaps that was the wrong word, I didn't mean to sound patronising, I kind of just meant "keep an eye on") will be "conducted" by Ryan, as mentor? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you can safely assume that if Jack is unblocked, a number of people will "have an eye on" his conduct. Black Kite 10:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Concerned per Dmcdevit—willing to AGF, but any interaction (AT ALL) with White Cat, and he's gone, IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Dmcdevit. Almost everyone can reform. But all Moby Dick's activity on Wikipedia for the last 3 years demostrate that he's unable to reform. Giving him another chance would be a waste of everybody's time, and this waste is taking place here already. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's already wasted enough good-will, we don't need to suffer any more of the WP:POINT-y disruption Merridew specialised in. Catchpole (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock in that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, contingent on some probationary conditions (such as avoiding White Cat and perhaps certain areas, at least for some length of time,) and that any further disruptive behavior will lead to a one-way trip out the door. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. I believe this is at heart a constructive contributor. The exaggerated attention to WhiteCat he has shown has at least as much to do with real problematic behaviour on WhiteCat's side as with any intention of stalking on Merridew's side. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked as there clearly is no longer a consensus for the original block. I'll put him under the mentorship of me and Moreschi and place him under the editing restrictions I originally quoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too, to the other folks above. I certainly accept the terms of this and will do my best to not disappoint folks. I would like Jéské Couriano to be formally considered to be one of my mentors as we've already discussed it in some detail. To those who've expressed reservations, I would like to offer further assurances that I will not squander this opportunity. I am well aware that I'll be monitored. I do not mind. I'll offer links to my past contributions on my user page when I rework it next. To anyone interested, there's an accounting of my accounts here. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outraged Oppose So it's done, but that's I feel a definate need to comment. I won't go through the whole list, but the idea that Jack has been described as a positive in his last sock disgusts me. How much abuse was heaped on Pixel. How many called Pixel a paranoid delusional for the audacity of correctly identifying a sock of a banned user while Jack just sat back laughing and lying. And this process, begining while most of the US was asleep and ending before we wake up. People do in darkness what they fear to do in the light. Pardon me while I let my disgust for this process settle.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I was prepared to unblock hi regardless of this thread, an unbanning was always going to happen, so it doesn't really matter when it was started. There's also a very clear consensus anyway to unblock, even though it hasn't been open too long. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's disgusts me. Having a popular opinion outweighs abuseu on users and abuse of community standards.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, the only thing that matters here is whether admins were ready to unblock him and there was plenty because they are able to see the bigger picture in this instance. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the end that's all that matters. That those with the power decided that abusive sockpupetry and ban evasion only deserves a 1 month block. And in the end the it disgusts me doesn't matter. I've said all I can without violating WP:NPA but today's a black day for WP and many of you and it's a day I won't soon forget.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the message is sock-puppetting and arbitration sanctions don't matter as long as you keep up with your social networking. Catchpole (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like that at all. I actually originally blocked him, but I've spent a long time looking over his contributions on all accounts and believe he has improved a lot since the days when he got sanctioned. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so it's clear what we're discussing. At least ALL of the following were confirmed to be Jack's accounts:
Neutral - I have some reservations, due in part to the issues with WhiteCat (will they really end this time?) and due to some other civility issues we experienced with him on the D&D Wikiproject. I take the concerns raised by Dmcdevit very seriously. I also have to agree with Casliber's assertion that he avoid participation in pop culture articles and AFDs related to pop culture articles, and that I'd like to see him make more positive contributions to things that interest him such as Senang Hati Foundation - now that would really make him a worthwhile contributor this time around. I would oppose this unblock, but I'd really like to WP:AGF here that a tiger can change his stripes. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? He lives in Bali, and he obviously likes Bali a lot. I don't know what his connection is to the foundation, if any, and unless he's making money from it I really don't care. To be honest, the thing I like best on Wikipedia is to see people who write quality articles and/or improve existing ones on subjects they know and like. If Jack wants to work on articles on his favorite subjects as his main activity on Wikipedia, avoids WhiteCat like the plague (and vice versa), avoids articles about subjects he doesn't like or doesn't care about, and is civil in interactions with other users, then hell - he might just become one of my favorite Wikipedians in time. If not - then, well to be honest he was helping to make Wikipedia a pretty unpleasant place for me to be at one point, and he could pretty easily go back to that if he really wants to. Obviously, I'm hoping for the former, as a lot of others are I'm sure. I have seen some good things out of Jack before, and I'd like to see his more positive aspects encouraged. I know it's been a very short time, but he's been pretty positive so far, and I for one would like to see that continue if he is willing to take his latest second chance as seriously as he says he is. BOZ (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unblocked was performed rather prematurely, only 10 hours after this thread had been started. User had been blocked for a few months, why the hurry today? I also do not see such strong consensus in favor of unblocking here as to warrant so quick an action. In any case, as the block is now ended, the onus in on the mentors to ensure that user Jack Merridew will behave properly from now on. While we give a second chance for this editor to redeem himself, he should be fully aware that any further disruption will immediately lead to a reblock. As one of those who are rather unimpressed by his previous actions, I echo Casliber's words above and recommend more explicit restrictions concerning this user's participation is deleion debates. This I understand, however, is up to the mentors to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't much else to discuss once me and a few other admins said they were willing to unblock - the original block no longer had consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You needed a consensus to unblock, not a no-consensus to uphold the original block. If any block can be reversed just because a few admins want to unblock, Wikipedia will undoubtedly be in chaos. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan made the original block so, no, he technically doesn't need consensus. Per WP:BLOCK an admin who wishes to unblock should discuss it with the blocking admin. If the blocking admin agrees to an unblock, it can be undone. Given he was the blocking admin, he has the right to perform the unblock. -- Kesh (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I gave this thought over the night, and asked myself the important question: "Would I even consider unblocking Jack Merridew if I didn't dislike White Cat so intensely?" The answer is no. I agree that Jack has generally been a positive influence, but there are violations so severe that banning is the only appropriate punishment. He has been deceitful, evaded bans and blocks, and has apparently been a positive contributor primarily through a negative effect: since undoing all of White Cat's work has a generally positive effect on the project, Jack's work has been positive. However, if White Cat had been contributing positively, that very same effect would have turned Jack into a negative contributor. That's not the kind of editor we need.Kww (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has never been personal. In your hypothetical scenario, I would not have been undoing good edits. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Principle Oppose Previously neutral, with some degree of alarm that a non participating editor that has one 15 minute ban to their name is being commented as perhaps being required to self topic and revert ban themselves to allow a (from review of this thread only) sockmeister to return from a indef block. However, to have already unblocked this account on the staggeringly original concept that since a number of admins were willing to give this editor a chance to edit again that there is no consensus for the block is astonishing. Excuse me? While this indef block is now longer a ban, there being at least one admin who would be prepared to unblock, there still needs to be a consensus to lift the tariff - and I do not see it yet. I am unsettled that a proposed mentor and initiator of this discussion (who I have always held in the highest regard) would take such an individual interpretation of policy in regard to an blocked editor with whom they have an obvious interest. I trust that my misgivings are unfounded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (So, it is fine if I go off and unblock User:Poetlister - there now being no consensus for the ban, which I have misgivings over? Yeah, thought so...)[reply]
You would be a bit late: Poetlister was unblocked earlier today after ArbCom review:[9] – Sadalmelik (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, they slipped that one in under the radar, didn't they? Tony Fox(arf!) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... well, that took the wind right out my sails... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Poetlister has taken the time to "sit out the ban" and has been working productively on Wikiquote and Wikisource, where she is respectively a 'crat and almost-sysop. She has not merely passed a little time and made a few non-controversial edits; she has immersed herself into these communities and made very valuable contributions to these projects. While her enWP unblock may come as a surprise to some here, it is precisely this type of reformation that we idealistically hope for when we say that bans/blocks are preventative. It shows that despite the funny business that occurred on enWP, her underlying motivations align closely with the Wikimedia community. John Vandenberg(chat) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This user has been participating at Commons, with an approach of coming clean and admitting the previous socks. The contributions that are on target for the mission of Commons have been, in my view, generally acceptable, although there has been a fair bit of the contributions that are focused on metaissues like renames, appeals, and the like. So this is a user that does consume some admin resource, that's for sure. Another factor is that there has been a move vandal that has plagued this user by taking names and causing some trouble by impersonation, on many different wikis. (this vandal also impersonates a lot of other users as well to be troublesome... generally available SUL and global blocking are going to go a long way to help fight this kind of behaviour) I take no position on the block itself (which in any case was already lifted I guess) but did want to offer some of this information. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose; this user was a aggressive and uncivil edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. The only instance where I can see unblocking as reasonable would be if he strictly avoids all edit warring, aggressive redirecting of articles, and obeys the civility policy, with the penalty of a long-term block if he violates those conditions. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak Endorse - I'm with DHMO on this one. Rudget (Help?) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the unblock, but not really okay with the method in which it was carried out. In this case, it seems fine to give the user another chance, especially under the close eye of those who have promised to monitor him. At the same time, I do not feel as though there was clear consensus to unblock the user when Ryan did so, or even if such is clear now. It still seems like somewhat of a "developing" consensus to me. SorryGuy Talk 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I made the original block, and no longer felt comfortable with it, hence another major reason why I unblocked. I certainly wouldn't have unblocked so quickly if another admin had replaced the original block. That said, there clearly isn't a consensus for the original block now. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a single person that really believes this whole thing resolved the dispute between me and Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Jack Merridew? Because if it has, this will be a new kind of WP:DR. I want to call it the "One-Sided Dispute Resolution". -- Catchi? 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose If he wishes to have yet another chance, he can do it on another project like Wikiquote or Wikisource, where there is less opportunity for disputes. Only after he demonstrates a long term commitment to working peacefully and productively on another WMF project, then he can appeal with evidence that he will return to enWP as a productive user. John Vandenberg(chat) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davenbelle had been given many second chances. let me list:
Davenbelle was given a second chance after the first arbcom case. He was told to "let others monitor coolcat" (see the case I am tired of linking). He failed to disengage after the arbcom case and continued stalking for a while. After wasting months of community time he chose to disappear after being cornered.
He gave himself another second chance by picking a new account, User:Moby Dick. He created the account User:Note to Cool Cat soon after. He continued to stalk me with this account for a while.
He was given yet another chance by arbcom with the second RfAr. He used this to continue stalking me. After being cornered yet again he chose to disappear. He reappeared and stalked me on commons before disappearing again.
He then gave himself another second chance with the account User:Diyarbakir. He used this to continue stalking me. Checkuser exposed/verified/confirmed the Diyarbakir-Moby Dick connection and he was banned indefinitely blocked and banned by arbitrator (User:Dmcdevit) at the time not only for stalking but also for abusive use of sockpuppetry.
He gave himself another second chance with his new account User:Senang Hati which he gotten it renamed to User:Jack Merridew. He slowly returned to his stalking habit ultimately leading to his latest block.
He was given a second chance by non en.wiki communities in the sense that he wasn't blocked on non en.wikipedia wikis. Since his indefinite block on en.wikipedia user has not stopped following me completely. If you look at his commons and meta contributions you will see at least three instances of failing to disengage:
Unblocking this user may be an overruling of arbcom [10]. Arbcom supposed to be the final word. -- Catchi? 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific ArbCom finding you can link to? At the moment it appears that an unblock has been enacted and any summary reblocking would violate WP:Wheel war - however, this already out of process unblock may need reverting if ArbCom had indicated that they need to approve it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing from ArbCom. I made the original block here and I've undone that original block. If there's conserns with this, please take it to ArbCom because this guy shouldn't be reblocked given the comments here so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links I linked are mirages? -- Catchi? 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any indication that ArbCom determined that they need to approve an unblock. The links indicate that just over a month ago the ArbCom were not inclined to vary any finding, but that does not disallow an admin inviting review of a ban. I am seriously concerned how a stance that "at least one admin is prepared (my italics) to consider unblock" in determining if a block is not a de facto ban was rapidly translated into "no consensus for block" - especially now that it appears that the ArbCom were not so minded - and acted upon, but I cannot find any reason why the unblock can now be overturned (WP:IAR is not appropriate for matters such as block) at present. It seems that you are presented with a fait accompli. My advice would be to monitor the situation - and try not to interact with Jack Merridew as far as is possible without corroding your ability to participate in editing the encyclopedia - and quickly report any instance which you consider stalking or otherwise in violation of the terms by which the editor was unblocked. I suggest that you bring any evidence regarding such an allegation to ANI, although I will review the matter if you wish (depending on the time of day and our respective availabilities). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the said restrictions had been enacted since users first account. Nothing changed in the past three years aside from the fact that Davenbelle has gotten more adapt in gaming the system. -- Catchi? 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
When I look at the above list some of the usernames that endorse unblock happens to be among the anti-E&C article group. I find it to be very intriguing to say the least. -- Catchi? 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a few, agreed. But now subtract those on the other side of E&C from the Oppose !votes and .... ? Black Kite 23:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally off-wiki votestacking comes to mind. -- Catchi? 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a very serious accusation and I would like to see you evidence for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White Cat, all I can say is that no one approached me in an effort to make me vote one way or the other (and you will note that while I wasn't flattering to you, I opposed the unblock). I think I would be on the list of people to contact if vote-stacking were to be attempted.Kww (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think comments such as this, this, and this clearly indicate that there was off-Wiki canvassing by the blockee for an unblock, and I note they were posted fairly promptly in response to your original post. I also, since I believe I detect hostility in your requesting White Cat for evidence of his accusation, would point out that several editors - in their comments above (12) - clearly believe that White Cat is part of the problem, despite having an almost spotless block record, as opposed an editor who has abused WP:SOCK in attempting to evade blocks levied for various policy violations. I am unsurprised at White Cats suspicions, given the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White Cat does not have an "almost spotless block record". Try looking at the block logs of Cool Cat and Coolcat. 86.175.64.244 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, based on the evidence, this duck smells like a duck. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what Jack sent me, or what I said to him, let me know and I will forward you all of the e-mails. I've got nothing to hide. Last I had heard from him was that he was e-mailing arbcom, and I assumed it was their call. No one, not even Jack, told me about this thread here on AN, or that the decision would be up to the community. I can't speak for other users, but I was not canvassed.
Jack made all of us who stood up for him (when he was first accused of being a sock puppet) look bad. We looked like fools, and we were lied to. So don't think that it was just some willy-nilly decision to support him here again. I came to the decision to trust him again on my own. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I have trouble believing that you will present uneditted evidence of your communications with this user. You have stated on record that you would be willing to assist this user and TTN to evade their bans and sanctions in the past. I cannot trust someone who is willing to take such actions and, imho, boasts of such things. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that lack of good faith response, White Cat, is exactly why you are not regarded particularly highly in some quarters on Wikipedia. (Not to mention that you dodged the question, too - given your concerns, one could equally suggest that there had been off-wiki collaboration from the "other" side of the E&C camp to oppose the unblock). Black Kite 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contact I have had with Jack amounts to an apology from Jack, and emails regarding work he has been doing at other projects. I did not receive any prompting from Jack to show up here. Sceptre left me a neutral note informing me of this thread but I had already seen it and decided not to comment on it until I had thought about it in more depth (just check my editing for that day). Seraphim♥Whipp 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously off-wiki votestacking cannot be proven - which is the very reason why it is off-wiki: to avoid detection. I explicitly avoided naming spesific people. No one needs to feel remotely defensive, no "spesific" person is accused here. I merely stated my suspicion. It was not even an accusation, that was a bad assumption on Ryan's part.
To clarify: I suspect that off-site votestacking either had happened, may happen or is already happening - in no way do I have proof of this. This merely was to put emphasis why this thread should not be treated like a vote. Any other meaning was not intended.
My comment was in response to LessHeard vanU's comment, which mentioned my post in conjunction with the comment: "clearly indicate that there was off-Wiki canvassing by the blockee for an unblock".Seraphim♥Whipp 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, both me and SW received the same amount of contact from Jack. None of the emails I received were clamouring for a block, it was pretty much an apology and stating he intended to appeal the ban. Sceptre(talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of transparency, he does seem to have sent a whole series of such messages. I got one too, a couple of days ago. It was a very short, neutral notification, stating not more and not less than that he was about to launch an appeal to Arbcom. No request for any action on his behalf or in his favour (and no follow-up contact between us afterwards). He may well have chosen people he thought might by sympathetic to his appeal, but that's nothing I can blame him for. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who would you blame for his conduct then? I do want to thank you for you honesty in pointing out that you had an e-mail contact with the user. -- Catchi? 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I got one too. It was just an FYI email stating that (to paraphrase) he had contacted ArbCom with a view to having his sanctions reduced. That was it, just a single sentence stating that. No canvassing, nothing about an attempt to be unblocked, nothing else. No doubt there will be some here who won't believe that, but that's their problem. Black Kite 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I received one as well. However, I was under the impression that the appeal was going through ArbCom, and had no knowledge of this thread until it popped up on my watchlist. I still stand by the reasons for unblocking, and my views were not influenced by e-mail in any way. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, think this was extremely poorly handled. We have an editor with a long history of harassing another editor and abusive sockpuppetry being unblocked less than a day after a discussion begins to unban him, without even waiting for the opinion of the editor being harassed. Yes, I realize that a user is not community banned if any admin is willing to unblock, but there's no urgency to unblock while we discuss the details. I'm a little amazed, too, at how quick we are to overlook this editor's transgressions. If Davenbelle/Jack were an editor advancing national causes, I think it's fair to say this unblock would never even have been considered.
Since we've decided that he gets to come back, we need to be clear on one thing: White Cat should not have to budge an inch for him. White Cat is not on his umpteenth chance. Jack is. Jack's ban also needs to be immediately restored if he harasses White Cat in any way. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Heimstern that this was handled extremely poorly - unblocking a persistant wikistalker without even waiting to hear from the victim? That's absurd! I can see no reason why Davenbelle should have been unblocked (and I say that as someone who ran numerous checkusers at WhiteCat's request to find his many sockpuppets). This unblocking should be reconsidered post-haste. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re-block, a month's time off for (my recollection here, sorry no diffs) multiple accounts, stalking and being the focus of more than one Arbcom? It doesn't seem too long ago that editors were saying White Cat was being paranoid. Being given the nth chance at this point and time is not right. R. Baley (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here's a better link to the last case rejected by arbcom [13] which was only because having a case over a banned user was considered overkill (rejected 0-5 in April 2008. To quote jpgordon, "Decline, solely because we're not enabled to practice corporal or capital punishment."). The next edit was to remove the case from the page. This editor should not be unblocked. R. Baley (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really incredibly poor judgment from Ryan Postlethwaite to unblock so soon. It appears that many of the users supporting the unblock has been approached off wiki, and they were partisans in the dispute to begin with, highly likely to support the unblock. This is in fact canvassing to approach only users you suspect to be sympathetic to your cause. I strongly encourage Ryan Postlethwaite to consider whether or not his use of admin tools has been appropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible new sockfarm in the process of being created
Someone is going through and creating new accounts using single random nonstandard unicode characters such as these few: [14] and [15]. If you go thru the user creation log, there a dozens of these created in the last hour or so. Just something to keep an eye on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking him; some of his socks have had unusual Unicode in their names. Keep note of all the names created; if one of them shows symptoms of Potteritis, see Thatcher immediately for an IP check. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko) 04:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was just saying that it shows he is active right this second. Is there enough for a checkuser yet on these new unicode names? BTW, there have been 5-6 more since we've been chatting here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, if you point out our mistaken phone-caller and all the accounts were made in the same time period, then point out his checkuser case, where a lot of unusual-Unicode-containing usernames were fluched out.-Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk·contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison❤ 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second sockfarm is all Greek myth characters(Atlas, Chronos, Cyclops), rendered in the original greek (except the last one, which is transliterated to Latin characters, but still the greek name). All created in a very short period of time. These may be need to be checked out as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
윤지용 could be legit, and checkuser doesn't work for me with User:குறோணி (maybe a font thing) but the Greeks are more tor sockfarms. Thatcher 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If checkuser passes the username in a URL parameter, try replacing it with exactly "%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8B%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%BF". And it may not have been the best idea to suggest that a given username cannot be examined with checkuser. --Random832 (contribs) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for would-be vandals who like BEANS, I can say that the above name, குறோணி (talk·contribs) works fine with checkuser for me :), so Confirmed again. Also, the other accounts under there were already blocked by Thatcher - Alison❤ 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the circumstances, I would suggest that if any more pop up, lock down their talk pages immediately. Blueboy96 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More usernames from Greek mythology have been created:
All these were created yesterday between 20:40 and 23:20; most are names of giants. --Snigbrook(talk) 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Another: Cottu (talk·contribs), an alternative name of Cottus the Striker / Cottus the Furious and registered around the same time. --Snigbrook(talk) 13:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there were 5 other sock accounts under there. The IP is an open proxy and has now been blocked. There are too many socks to detail here, so I'm going to checkuser and block them myself here. Anyone who's interested can see them in my block logs ... - Alison❤ 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I think we're done. Checkusered / blocked / TOR'd. My block button has melted :p - Alison❤ 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Import idea
I know Skynet will be brought up, but I know other wikipedia's have admin Tor (un)blocking bots. what are the thoughts of importing this bot to en wiki? βcommand 2 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In before moronic comments such as "the bot will go rogue and block everyone" and "admin bots will take over the encyclopedia". Nakon 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, I'm not that active on other wikipedia's, how long does it take to review each case? Rudget (Help?) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean review a case? βcommand 2 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, I read it wrong. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fine idea. It looks to be running smoothly and without problems at the Dutch Wikipedia, as you provided. As with any part of Wikipedia, there isn't much danger of running away with the problem; if the bot misbehaves it can be blocked or shut down quickly, and anything it does can be rechecked manually if it screws up. We already have at least one limited application admin-capabale bot; this one seems to be a non-controversial, repetitive, and otherwise timewasting tasks for humans to do manually, exactly what a bot is designed for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was just about to comment, but got distracted below. I'd agree this a good idea and after reading the link that was provided, I see no reason why the theoretical account can't be blocked, like explained above. Rudget (Help?) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will go rogue and block everyone. Admin bots will take over the encyclopedia. Oh, wait...am I too late? :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a way to exempt users from blocking if they set up a TOR node on their IP with read-only access to Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that possible? I know you can chose not to exit to certain websites (and that's easily checkable), but how can you just prevent editing, and not browsing. -- lucasbfrtalk 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. If nobody has done it yet I am willing to over to the NL wiki and ask if the owner is willing to come over here and run it of course after it has been approved. Rgoodermote 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O. Well...the offer still stands. But I see it will not be used. I do however still like the idea. Rgoodermote 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it'd be done the same way as WJB's redirect cleanup bot - an RfA and BRfA, wasn't it? There won't be any problems if it gets wide community consensus, obviously —Alex.Muller 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted on WP:BON asking for an admin volunteer to take over this request, which seems to me to be an excellent idea. Happy‑melon 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the corporation that, near as I can tell, handles all of the IT for the provincial government - including a lot of the school systems. I e-mailed the admin there a while back about some heavy vandalism from one of their IPs, and he e-mailed back to confirm that it was in fact a school IP, copying it on to the specific techs for that address for action. It's not the Legislature or anything. The guy seemed cool about the issue when I contacted him, if anyone wants to point out the rafts of vandalism that come out of there... Tony Fox(arf!) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. The IP is about to be blocked and I wanted to be sure that the block got reported to the appropriate people if this turned out to be a government office. Corvus cornixtalk 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could do worse than to drop the tech guy an e-mail if it's a persistent problem. The one I reported had a block log as long as my arm. Tony Fox(arf!) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently a community ban is de facto created, any time a user is indef-blocked, and no admin is prepared to unblock them.
Two problems:
Most community bans are in practice consensus driven anyway,
With 2000over 1500 admins there is always an admin who will unblock even a block most others agree with. Our consensus model clashes heavily with an "any admin acting unilaterally" model here. It can cause problems, since most other decisions, wide consensus trumps most things.
Question - is it time we moved to a consensus-based view of a community ban?
The proposal would be:
A community ban arises where there is a consensus that a user should be banned from the wiki. A ban may either be created by discussion and consensus, or by an initial indef-block that a consensus then agrees should be considered a ban. Once created, a community ban may be removed by consensus, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The consensus in each case is of uninvolved admins.
Agree with point 1, but is there any evidence of point 2 being an issue? I haven't seen it, and of the 1537 admins, I doubt more than a third are currently active. --Rodhullandemu 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus model is seen as important. Also, actual cases probably do exist where an argument has broken out whether sole admin X can unban someone whom a consensus favors keeping blocked (placing consensus vs. unilateral models at loggerheads), or some such. Just seems that this would be a nice way to handle it that effectively codifies how we do it nowadays, where actual community bans mostly are consensus backed. FT2(Talk | email) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Todays midnight unblock of Jack Merridew supports point 2.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I missed that; I've, er, been writing an article, bizarrely enough.--Rodhullandemu 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not support point 2. The editor who unblocked was the one who blocked him in the first place. Very different situation from what you're stating. -- Kesh (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it would certainly seem inappropriate for community consensus to be overturned by a single admin, and in that sense, it does seem that the current system lacks logic. --Rodhullandemu 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with the assesment that any indef block is a defacto ban... Remember the differences: accounts are blocked, persons are banned. Many, if not most, indef blocks are a result of an account being used to vandalize or cause any other type of disruption, after which the person can re-register and start over productively. You're not proposing we need to get consensus first for these blocks, I hope? — Edokter • Talk • 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the user who wrote WP:INDEF so yes, I do remember it :-) More seriously, you might have split the sentence when it wasn't intended you should. Note the wording after the comma, "and no admin is prepared to unblock them". Or else you're discussing clean starts, which are a bit different. We surely don't expect anyone indef-blocked to be able to just start a new account and carry on unchanged. FT2(Talk | email) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2, that sounds like a reasonable concept. Here is a pair of options for implementing it:
Require 2 admins to unblock a community-banned user; they must commit to keeping tabs on the user until the community comes to a consensus that this is no longer necessary (or X months, whichever comes first).
Any user subject to community ban who is unblocked will automatically be reblocked after X edits. At that time, a different admin must review the user's edits and decide to finally unblock. Both admins will thereafter be charged with keeping tabs on the community-banned user until there is community consensus otherwise (or X months pass, whichever comes first).
FT2's vision is cleaner than either of these mechanisms for implementing it, but what I'm trying to do here is offer concrete suggestions that would at least make the community ban more difficult to overturn than it is now. Antelantalk 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics of X admins may not be needed. Good consensus is more to the point (see FCYTravis' point below). An addition that "banned users are usually parolled back into the community" will suffice. FT2(Talk | email) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I like this approach. If it fails, we can consider other options (such as the X admins watching for X months approach that I've suggested here). I, for one, hope it doesn't come to that. Antelantalk 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be studied very closely to avoid becoming "Votes for Banning." FCYTravis (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Same applies to any consensus discussion though. CSN was merged back into ANI exactly to ensure many more eyeballs to prevent that. Yes it's important, but the issue here is more "in principle". FT2(Talk | email) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. A consensus-based approach makes it much more likely that people are going to seriously review these matters in substantial numbers, reducing the probability of inappropriate bans. Furthermore, individual admins should not have veto power; we need to encourage more collaborative decision-making among admins. Everyking (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations in supporting this, though I am not closed to the concept -- indeed, it is to a certain extent current practice. Votes for banning must absolutely be avoided, and the barrier must be pretty high. The aim of the debate should be "are there any reasonable objections to putting this ban into place?" rather than "does anyone oppose this ban?". This is, of course, difficult to achieve. It might require a decision that whoever says "Support ban ~~~~" has such a comment removed from the discussion. I have great scepticism about Antelan's ideas in particular -- that kind of concrete system is incredibly arbitrary and inflexible -- two principles that must be as far as possible from any consideration of banning. In response to Everyking, admins should not have veto power, but a well-reasoned objection should. Sam Korn(smoddy) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With your permission, if this went ahead, I'd put the "aim of the debate" point as a footnote to the final version, if folks agree. Good call. FT2(Talk | email) 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have advocated something like this proposal for a long time. We need to reduce drama. If 80% of admins want to ban somebody, they should be banned. JehochmanTalk 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that rather depends what the other 20% think. If they, in general, think "I don't think they need to be banned yet, but it's well on the road", then I think a ban would be reasonable. If they in general think "No, absolutely not, this user has done nothing warranting banning and here's why ...", I think a ban is misplaced. If consensus banning is to be introduced, it has to be real consensus, not an arbitrarily defined figure. Sam Korn(smoddy) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then Admins are supposed to be able to assess consensus on AfDs, and Bureaucrats on RfAs. Since this would be an Admin-input process, would Bureaucrats therefore be the best to assess consensus, or should it be left to Admins? --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, with an important caveat: people who are partisans to a particular conflict should be expected to recuse themselves from the actual consensus and/or disclose their history of involvement. It wouldn't be right for a team of people to gang together and force the outcome of something as important as a ban. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed regarding disclosure of involvement. Once concern, though, is that this phrasing makes it sound like this is going to be a vote. Certainly involved admins shouldn't participate in an administrative way in these matters, but involved parties should be welcome to give their input, so long as they disclose their involvement. Antelantalk 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The amended version looks great - a long overdue update. Thank you very much, FT2, for proposing this. Should reduce the occurrence of periodic drama-fests. DurovaCharge! 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in principle - but I would like it made clear that the later lack of consensus for a ban resulting from an indef block which was originally supported is not consensus to unblock. The erosion of consensus in banning an editor still means that the block is in place, but that an admin is prepared to argue for the lifting of the block; there is still the need to establish consensus that the block can be lifted. This comment comes directly from the actions performed regarding Jack Merridew a few sections above (at the time of writing). LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to escalate an indef block is not the same as consensus to remove it. I think that's your point. If so, concur. FT2(Talk | email) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but also consensus to de-escalating a ban does not mean there is consensus to unblock, only that there is the potential to unblock (first we agree we can discuss unblocking a banned editor, and only then do we talk about lifting the block.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal. Based on what happened today the current process is fatally flawed.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sits fine with me. At present, the whole "if one admin feels an unblock is good, then it's all fine" concept really doesn't work in situations where the greater community may have something to say about it. In the above situation, I would be surprised if the majority of the community even knows it happened. We're a consensus-driven project, and that should be extended to community bans. Tony Fox(arf!) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this as well. Wizardman 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion assumes that community bans are normally enforced by a block that can be undone by the action of a single admin. In many cases community bans are topic bans and are, therefore, not enforced by a block but by reverting the edits of the banned user. Any policy revision should keep this in mind.
That being said, I agree with the concept that one admin should not be able to overrule consensus by undoing a community ban. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the hope that a previously supported block will henceforth not be reversed due to an agreement among a few individuals (like it was yesterday) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must oppose this. Banning is a very serious issue, and to be quite frank, the Wikipedia community acts like a mob sometimes. The current rules for a community ban, which allow that if any admin is willing to unblock, the user is not banned, are needed as a safeguard. This is simply holding bans to an extremely high standard of consensus. Already, we see editors being AFD'd from time to time by those who treat community bans as votes for banning. This change will simply empower that. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: How are we to judge when consensus is reached? We have constant difficulties with this at RFA, and yet we're trying to implement a system like that here? This is a bad idea, especially with an issue so serious as banning. I take extreme issue with Jehochman's statement that if 80% of admins think a user should be banned, they should banned. This is the definition of votes for banning, and is something we should be running from, not moving toward. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on a misconception, in my opinion. If someone is indefinitely blocked, and an admin unblocks, then there arises the possibility that the admin will re-block, possibly/hopefully following discussion. If then the unblocking admin leaves the block then it's a ban, since they have reached the conclusion that their action has no support. If it continues to be lifted by that admin or others, then there is no ban for now — if a lone warrior persists in the face of vast opposition, then they will be stopped eventually by ordinary means, perhaps including an emergency arbitration. In the end, perhaps that collection of unblocking admins will as a whole come to the ban view, and leave it in place, in which case it's a ban by consensus. If they do not, then it cannot be viewed as tenable that the individual is likely to remain blocked, and thus no ban can possibly be in place.
None of these facts change if you happen to legislate some other "consensus" model, as is being mooted here – it matters not if there is a so-called consensus of a handful of passing admins to ban since if someone feels strongly enough that the person should be unblocked they will still do so. You cannot possibly stop unblocks by attempting to legislate in this way; a nice demonstration of why policy is descriptive and not legislative. This new piece of legislation tries to stop something that simply cannot be stopped while any admin retains technical abilities to unblock since feelings will eventually run high just as they do now. Finally, I dispute FT2's #2 as demonstrably untrue in the numerously many cases where indefinite blocks have stuck in the past. If we accept FT2's #2, however, then the proposal is doomed to failure as a matter of definition for the reasons I have just described. Also, of course, this will in practise function identically to the disastrous Community Sanction Noticeboard, and it is hopeless to suppose otherwise. Splash - tk 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something to remember
We get caught up in our discussion of the way in which Wikipedia operates that sometimes we forget that it operates at all. We are consumer driven, millions more readers than the thousands of editors (hell, I'm not even an "editor" as much as I am a reader). I've been reading Ed Fitzgerald's userpage, which got me thinking about this thread.
The point is that we should all remember that Community Bans don't happen that often in the grand scheme of having the office open 24/7/366this year for business. At best a dozen a year.
These sort of community ban reviews are even more rare. I can only think of a couple times this has happened in recent years.
Sometimes smoke is caused by char and ashes. There is not always fire.
I am trying to start up a page titled "Walk That Walk, Talk That Talk" but it seems to be blacklisted due to abuse. The page is merely an album by the band "The Fabulous Thunderbirds" and is in no way to be used for malicious purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancera (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm apparently you managed to create it afterwards. Probably a technical issue on our side. -- lucasbfrtalk 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Glass
I would like to start an article on the noted character actor Ned Glass, but the title seems to be salted. Can it be released, or should I use "Ned Glass (actor)" or some other variation? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We accidentally blocked regular spaces (again). The problem should be fixed now. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war on a WP:BLP article. The same quote, taken grossly out of context,[16] is being repeatedly inserted by two editors. As I, and another editor, have pointed out on the talk page the quote in question appears to be an attempt to summarise someone else's views and is not the opinion of the article's subject. --Lo2u(T • C) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that User:Asifchaudry is a sockpuppet account of User:Pakhistory1 based on their editing history on this article. I agree with Lo2u that these accounts are attempting to portray Johnson's views inaccurately by selective quoting. Because I am involved, I'm not going to take any admin actions on this article, but it would be useful if a couple of uninvolved admins could add the article to their watchlists and be prepared to step in if the edit war doesn't stop. Thanks, Gwernol 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent move protection for articles on countries
Some of you might have noticed this persistent vandal who's been moving articles on countries to "HAGGER" every single day. Since articles on countries are unlikely to be reasonably moved to a new location (and definitely not without a proper listing at WP:RM, lengthy discussion and adequate closure of the move proposal by an admin), perhaps they should be granted permanent move protection. That way we would avert any move disruption including this HAGGER pest. Please provide feedback. Húsönd 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, even in the face of WP:DENY. Rudget (Help?) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea. We ought to move-protect high visibility articles (which have no reason to be moved). Hut 8.5 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really bad idea. Block the abuser (s). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Let's not go down the slippery slope of prophylactic implementation of page and move protection because they 'might' be vandalized by lots of people. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move protection doesn't prevent anyone from editing, but it does stop high-profile articles from vandalism from an extraordinarily prolific vandal. There is no reason to move country articles without discussion on the talk page. In the odd chance of a page move being decided through consensus (see Burma), an admin can make the move. Horologium(talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The protection policy states that pages can be move protected under three circumstances: "Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism; Pages subject to a page name dispute; and Visible pages which have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard." Articles on internationally recognized countries meet two of the three criteria, the first (thanks to a certain persistent vandal) and third (because they're all vital articles). In the unlikely event one of these articles does need to be renamed, an admin can take care of it at WP:RM. This seems quite logical and shouldn't be harmful in the least. Hersfold(t/a/c) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point. S/he will just move to some other set of articles. States, cities, actor bios, etc. It's just moving the problem from one place to another. It's not practical and it's not helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support permanent move protection for countries. This is not anticipating a possible future problem, it's responding to an actual problem. Blocking the type of vandals who are listed in Wikipedia:Long term abuse is an endless task, and may never be finished. By comparison, move protection is easy. Leave things movable where the likelihood of a good-faith move being needed is higher. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless, for the same reasons I do not allow semi-protection on my talk page - he'll just move elsewhere. It's an endless shell-game when protection is involved; the only pages that deserve a move-prot are articles he particularly favors and userpages he hits. -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he'll move elsewhere. But since he seems to be sticking to country articles for the moment, I think that it will be an effective solution at least for those articles, which are by the way among the most viewed on Wikipedia. Articles on countries shouldn't be moving anywhere without lengthy discussions so why having them with the move tool enabled for all? It's a blatant invitation to vandals. Furthermore, move protection is certainly better than leaving everything just as it is (not unless some of you would find any joy in reverting Hagger's moves every day). Húsönd 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this list exist? I though it was quality over quantity, but this list seems to be comparing users by the quantity of their edits. iMatthew2008 11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless data, in my view. I don't think the list is there to provide useless comparisons, but a simple display of users' productivity. Húsönd 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a list, and can provide insightful help for those looking for help immediately. Rudget (Help?) 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may display the breadth of a users productivity, but like all statistics... It gives no recognition, for example, of an entire evenings input on one or two articles, with very few "saved" against preview edits, whereas as some gadfly who gives a lot of opinions on admin noticeboards, does a bit of AIV work, and a little wikification of a few articles, gets quite a few "ticks on the scoresheet". I like to think that both types of contribution are helpful, and such a list is far too simplistic to provide a proper evaluation of "worth". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the list is to notify a reader of active editors? Because I believe plans are being made for this list to go into mainspace soon. iMatthew2008 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the list has any actual purpose. It's just trivia: Useless, but interesting. --Conti|✉ 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, but it takes up a lot of the database doesn't is? iMatthew2008 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's anything that we need to bother about. This data already exists, I can't imagine compiling it like that takes any more space than another long page- absolutely minimal. The list is used, and a lot of people have an interest in/make use of metadata. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, deleting it won't remove it from the database. A short edit war on George W. Bush would probably take up as much disk space. Sam Korn(smoddy) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire editing history of that page is using less database space than a single day's vandalism to George W. Bush. --Carnildo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ITN Image
By my reckoning the same image of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN for about 11 days. Surely we can update the image a little more frequently than that. Yorkshiresky (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no big stories that need covering, apart from the Zimbabwe elections, but the potential image for this is, I think, being discussed at ITN candidates. Rudget (Help?) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Community noticeboard
Regulars of this noticeboard may be interested in a new noticeboard I set up. More info here, comments would be appreciated. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several times today, I've seen this page, along with ANI hit with Page Moves to nonsense names along with a lot of vandalism. I personally think this page, and WP:ANI should both be Semi-Protected Indefinitely to stop any possible attacks from IP users, or from immediately registered users. If IP's to have legimate complaints about other users, they can go to here to make a post. As I said above, I think this page, and ANI should both be semi-protected indefinitely. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with that. These pages are supposed to help come up with ways to rid of vandalism, not be another page for vandals to attack, you know? iMatthew2008 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think move protecting would be a good idea here. Nobody but an admin should have a reason to move this page anyways. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. IP editors can be valuable contributors. If an IP editor vandalizes this page, all the more reason to block them, and not a good reason to prevent other IP editors' voices from being heard. Also, it would be a huge pain to have to move IP comments manually from another page.
That said, I absoultely agree with protecting this page from moving, and in fact it's already fully move-protected. —Remember the dot(talk) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalizing AN is like vandalizing a police station: yes, there's a certain "cool" factor to it, but you'll have the entire department on your ass in seconds. --Carnildo (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that both boards are already permanently move-protected. As for permanent semi-protection, that is not such a good ideal; IP- ane new editors need to be able to post here as well... and many do. — Edokter • Talk • 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there are plenty of IP editors who post here. There are times when the topic suggests that the IP involved posts here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TFA fully protected
I dropped a note to the protecting admin but s/he may be offline. I don't think there is consensus for this action, can somebody please unprotect. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...I assume that "the protecting admin" (who is a developer and sysadmin) knows we don't usually do it. You probably should have discussed things with him first. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't online. Having it fully-protected for several hours wouldn't go down well with many people. D.M.N. (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several hours? ... 42 minutes. Is this the demise of Wikipedia? Please. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could of been protected for several hours if it wasn't for this post, which could of made some unhappy. Anyway it's been unprotected now; that's the main thing. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a fast reaction. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: ArbCom granting Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights
Given that the Arbitration Committee has promised to inform the community when they intend to grant people checkuser and/or oversight rights, this is notice that there is currently a discussion ongoing to grant User:Sam Korn checkuser and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia.
He previously served as an Arbitrator, and was a checkuser and oversighter. However, when the identity confirmation system was implimented, he did not confirm his identity and voluntarily requested that his rights be removed. As such, they were not removed controversially. He has recently asked that we grant him his rights again, as soon as we recieve confirmation of his identity. At present, it seems the Committee will be granting him checkuser/oversight rights, since his rights were not removed controversially and he now wishes to have them back.
Any comments regarding this discussion may be sent posted here, or mailed to the Arbitration Committee private mailing list if privacy is preferred. Contact details for the Committee mailing list are here. Please set the subject of your e-mail to "Comments on granting rights to Sam Korn", to let us easier sort the comments together. Although the Committee will take any and all comments into consideration, please note that the final decision resides with us.
As long as he did not abuse or misuse it, this decision is fine with me. Welcome back. <spam>For future reference you may like to post on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard for general notices like this</spam> Majorly (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I restored the history, as the reason given for deletion wasn't really a reason. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I requested it to be deleted. Maybe I should use a new sig for my new identity? Al Tally a.k.a. Majorly 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a good admin, and frequents #wikipedia-en-unblock on IRC a lot. He seems trustworthy, and the fact that he gave up the tools voluntarily says a fair bit in his favor. No argument here. Hersfold(t/a/c) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn is one of the few individuals that I can recall having a disagreement over interpretation of some policy - although I don't recall which one it was, since it was some time ago... This likely means that they are eminently suitable for CU and Oversight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely trust this user if he were to reacquire the tools. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he has had them before, and had the rights removed in an uncontroversial manner, I don't see any reasons why not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would as well. For the record, I have an outstanding request for Oversight with ArbCom that I made some time ago. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, I don't see any reason to believe that he will misuse the privileges. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, and taking note of Lar's comment I think it is logical that checkusers who are admins on enwiki should have oversight as well. Looking at the list of checkusers, out of about 30 enwiki checkusers there are only four who don't have oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Well, I certainly trust you - you've an excellent reputation. Welcome :) - Alison❤ 03:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust him. <spam> Incidcentally, I would not mind the community also granting checkuser rights (in a manner agreed upon between the local wiki and the Foundation)[17]</spam> NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rogue admin bot
See User talk:Misza13#User:The way, the truth, and the light. I was falsely blocked by this bot last night and remained blocked for an hour. I did not make 3 moves, either, it was 2, the second of which was a revert of the first.
Why do we need bots blocking users anyway? What is a 'bad move' and how quickly do I have to make them to get blocked? Why can't this bot stop Grawp if it detects rapid page moves? Why aren't admin bots required to run on a separate account, so that at least it would be clear that the actions are being done by a bot?
Who said it was a bot? The nearest blocks before and after your own from Misza13 were five hours from yours. I think Misza13 was speaking figuratively when he said the block was "triggered." Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He openly admitted that it was a bot here. --Chetblong (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Oh well. No bot can be perfect, and this one does a good task with an astronomically low error rate. I believe this is only the second time in two years that Misza13's bot has flown off the rails, which is certainly better than the success rate of mine. :)east.718at 01:32, May 4, 2008
Surely you don't still run that bot? That right there shows what can go wrong while using such things. IMHO sysops are given their tools to use them themselves, not to create a script and have the script do the work for them. We were given our tools because the community trusted us with them, and I believe that this is betraying the trust that the community has in us. We do not have the right to create our own administrators, if we want to introduce such a policy then that is fine, but until one is accepted among the community, I think that all adminbots should be shut down. --Chetblong (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone else is confused. Yes, Misza uses bots for various fully automated deletion and blocking tasks and has done so for a long time. Nor is he alone in doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem here- one screw-up once in a while is perfectly fine, and as long as Misza stays open about it being a bot, and is willing to accept responsibility for it, I have no issues with him running it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't know why this is such a big issue, or why people think "it can make mistakes" is that bad. People make mistakes too, unless we turn into some sort of dualistic infallible ghosts :P Aaron Schulz 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problem of it making mistakes is the issue. It's that they are unapproved. If the admins think they will be widely accepted why don't they create a separate bot account and put it through RFA? It has been done before, see here. --Chetblong (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any human who made this mistake would have his judgement seriously questioned. And if this automated blocking is a good thing, what necessary blocks has it done? As I said, why can't it stop Grawp and similar real vandals? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are adminbots allowed according to policy? No. --Chetblong (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since blocking a new editor has a fair chance to drive that editor off WP, it shouldn't be done lightly. Automated tasks which block really should be reviewed by the community so multiple eyes can see if there will be any problems. If this was really triggered by only moving two pages (and talk pages), I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. Gimmetrow 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect it was the presence of multiple moves to titles using the word "faggot" that triggered it. In this case, we are talking about faggot (word), but nearly always moving a page to a new title involving curse words is a sign of vandalism. Dragons flight (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the criteria could be more precise to avoid false positives. Perhaps moves where the curse word is both in the original and the target should be excluded. Gimmetrow 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea - Misza, add this in please :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm fairly certain the user who this bot is targeted at is reading this section and now adjusting his methods to evade it. MBisanztalk 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting the user was doing something wrong? --Lemmey talk 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The algorithm
You can figure it from the source code anyway so what the hell, no serious beans here...
A "bad move" is one that matches a regex on the move destination (in this case "faggot") - and only the destination or else Grawp could always hit pages that contain profanities in titles with impunity. The threshold is set to 3 with the following rationale:
Let's also allow the second one as it's probably a talk page move related to the main move (they are technically separate moves, with two separate entries on both RecentChanges and Log).
On the third move, block - things are fishy now, so better to shoot and make a mistake than feel sorry (if it's Grawp, he's such a rapid mover that every tenth on second counts, really - and we've already let him do two moves).
Finally, the time threshold is 5 minutes. I could probably lower that to 1 (can a human revert his own move faster than that under normal conditions? The way, the truth, and the light needed 2 minutes) but still, if Grawp were to go slower than that, he wouldn't achieve much (unless all admins overdosed sleeping pills). But still, I'm slightly hesitant. Thoughts? Миша13 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the algorithm take into account self-reverts? I would have the threshold at 5 moves (including talk page moves ) or 3 moves (if you let talk pages and pages count as one move). As not all pages have talk pages, I would suggest you find a way to let a page and talk page count as "one move" for the purposes of your algorithm (the fact that you seemingly didn't do this in the first place shows that you are not infallible when it comes to writing bots and should have discussed your algorithm with more people, like you are doing now, but that is an argument for another day). It should also be able to detect self-reverts - if someone moves a page with a title that matches the regex, and then reverts themselves straightaway, will they get blocked? Finally, does your algorithm distinguish between different users? If a sequence of different users move the same page multiple times, what will happen? Also, can your bot distinguish between a page move vandal and (say) a page-move revert war? Finally, could you set up a whitelist of encyclopedia articles that legitimately have the regex words in them? And then (somehow) work out slightly less stringent criteria involving those pages, as moves involving renaming the pages will still have the regex word in the title. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind discussing tweaking the code, but I'd tend to err on the side of caution (faster blocks). I've seen instances where even with the bot blocking, grawp will still get dozens or more moves between when the bot is tripped and the seconds it takes to send the block token in. And given that grawp is reading this and adjusting his moves to maximize damage, I'm not sure setting up exceptions will help things as he'll just focus on those exceptions. MBisanztalk 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be sensible to have the general behaviour that will trigger the blocking bot explained, so that users who do legitimate page moves can avoid getting blocked. Would having a whitelist of users help? Would that have excluded the user who got blocked in this case? Ultimately, this might need something more basic: adjusting the technical side of things so that page moves can only be done at a rate of (say) one a minute. Are there cases where anyone, bot or user, needs to carry out page moves at a rate faster than this? Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the past we discussed the idea of requiring a certain number of edits for auto-confirm status, as his previous attacks had been from accounts that had 0 edits. The very night of that discussion, before we could even decide if it was a good idea, the first hit was from an account with 100 edits dating back 9 months. He had prepared an account 9 months in advance, knowing we'd eventually start thinking of that option. So I suspect things like a page-move throttle have already been thought of, and ways to evade them prepared. Some users did indicate they move more than 1 page per minute when doing a large series of naming realignments. Given that grawp uses dozens of name variations, it would be hard to white-list a certain style of name. And well, the editor mistakenly blocked is a regular account, not a rollbacker flag or bot, so short of creating a "This user is not grawp" flag, I don't know how a white list would protect people like "The way, the truth, and the light" from accidentally being hit. MBisanztalk 11:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you evade a page move throttle? (No, I don't really want to know the answer if there is one). Just seriously, has anyone thought of way to do this? If grawp has found a way, let's find out. Might as well employ him as a "test the code to desttruction" tester. He is free as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, using different accounts is one answer. But a throttle on moving a page that has just been moved would help (with admins being able to over-ride it to revert a move). That would restrict grawp to using different accounts to move different pages. Any way to restrict moving pages to the same destination too fast? The different accounts thing is a problem, mainly because the characteristics of genuine accounts vary so widely (regular users can be inactive for long periods after creation, and long-term users can go inactive for long periods as well), so it is easy for grawp (and others) to assume the sam characteristics. Maybe the answer is a combination of both. If lots of accounts that have long periods of inactivity (ie. sleeper accounts) engage in a sequence of page moves fitting the regex at around the same time, then block. As long as we can get grawp to do useful edits to create accounts for this sort of page moving, then the trade-off might be worthwhile. Ultimately, though, deny recognition is important. The more people are seen to be worrying about this, the more he will do it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the e-mail, Mbisanz. I think that a page move throttle applied both to accounts and to pages will help. First: Set things so that the same page can't be moved more than once a minute (or even higher) unless reverting a move. Second: Set things so that users can't do more than one page move (of any page) a minute, unless they have a certain level of user rights. Third: monitor page move activity and if lots of page moves start happening in a short period of time (how many normal page moves are done every second?) examine the characteristics of the accounts doing page moves - if they fit the profile of a sleeper account, block them. I think the bottleneck is examining the profile of the sleeper accounts - how long would it take to profile the suspected sleeper accounts doing the moving? The basic problem is a high rate of page moving. If the background rate of page moving is very high anyway, it is difficult to detect excessive page moving. So, does anyone know the normal rate of page moving? Special:Logs helps. See Move log. Anyone able to get a figure for the normal background rate there? Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and switch off the throttles when grawp gets bored and they give up and go away. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been at it for over 9 months now, I don't think he's getting tired. Short of range-blocking entire states, I don't see good options here. MBisanztalk 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please keep user talk pages intact
Yesterday, I edited an article (my username in this post changed because my usual name is my real name and I wish to protect my privacy) where a user made a useful comment in the article talk pages. Upon trying to contact him, I find him banned. However, some administrators have (possibly with glee) removed comments and pasted their own sock templates. If you make it so difficult, I'm not going to search the history to find comments.
We should have a policy banning this. User talk page comments are useful. Banning that useful editor harmed the article but I won't get into whether the ban was good or bad. But please do not feel you are superior because you are an administrator and deface someone's user talk page. I think it was page protected in spite of non-abuse of the unblock template.
There should be an ethics committee that reviews bad behavior that may seem fun at the moment but inhibits communication on articles. Now I see no recourse except ArbCom and RFC, both too confrontational. An ethics committee would develop precedent to prevent actions that harm wikipedia but may seem fun at the moment.
I haven't named any names because embarassment is not what I'm trying to do. It's encyclopedia improvement. Jerrydiscussion (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to help discuss this with you, but I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. Are you upset because you can't contact a banned user? Generally speaking, a blocked user's talk page will stay up unless they are using it for further disruption, in that case it will be protected. Redrocket (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page that I saw was not "stay up" and it wasn't used for disruption. Someone called him and sock and then put a sock label on the talk page and deleted/reverted all the discussion. There was no disruption. It was page protected.
See, an ethics committee could say just that - there is to be no alteration of the user talk page and it must not be page protected. Simple as that. Not something big enough for me to fight for so the bad behavior continues.
I know this is an impossible battle, trying to get people to conduct themselves properly. This may be why Wikipedia gets criticism elsewhere on the internet.
To answer your question, it's improper behavior even by Redrocket's description of what should be done. But there is no useful mechanism to get administrators to change. Any ideas?Jerrydiscussion (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to say whether there was a problem or not without knowing the user you're talking about. As Redrocket points out above, though, it's obvious that there was enough of a problem involving the editor for an administrator to decide to ensure they didn't have a platform for continued problems. If you feel this was a problem, you'll have to tell us what the account is so we can actually review the situation. Tony Fox(arf!) 04:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and sum up, since I understand your concern but your insistence on remaining vague makes it very difficult to understand what exactly that concern is. I have no idea how long you've been here, so if I repeat information you already know, forgive me.
If there was a protected user page with a sock notice on it, chances are that user was a sockpuppet of a banned user. When a user is banned, they have done something serious enough that they are not welcome on wikipedia. Being permanently banned is a last resort, and so is taken quite seriously. If you were looking for comments of someone who was here as a sockpuppet (a newly created user for the purpose of evading a block), chances are that person's post was deleted.
If someone is banned they have shown themselves to be so disruptive that their contributions are not welcome, no matter what identity they take. If you're looking to converse with someone who's been banned (or is a sock of a banned user, which is the same thing), they're no longer here. Sorry, but admins have ruled that whatever good they were doing here has been far outweighed by the bad, and there wasn't enough of a chance they could be productive to keep them around.
As for their talk page, when a user is banned the only page they can edit is their talk page. This is done so they can request to be unblocked and plead their case. However, some editors take advantage of that to turn their user page into a page full of attacks of other users, admins, wikipedia, or something else unproductive. When that happens, the page is locked down. That's probably what you've run across.
Again, sorry if you're looking for a user who's been banned. They're not available here any more, and that's probably best. Hope this helps. Redrocket (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sorry, but admins have ruled that whatever good they were doing here has been far outweighed by the bad, and there wasn't enough of a chance they could be productive to keep them around." - Hey, they could be community banned, too... (/faux alarm) Antelantalk 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing BAG membership request
I've put myself up for BAG membership (God that sounds lame) on WT:BAG -- here. Any comments / questions / votes (zomg votes!) are welcome. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catch 22
User:LemmeyBOT a bot operated by User:Lemmey for the purpose of restoring named references whose content is lost. The bot is currently undergoing a BAG approval process to gain approval for use of the bot in automatic mode. However the bot is currently operated in semi-automatic or confirmation mode. This usage requires no approval from the BAG as specifficly stated by the BAG in questions listed here and here, bottom of the page I specifically asked this question several months ago.
Certain admins seem intent on trapping this tool in a perpetual Catch-22 claiming first WP:USERNAME and then that it is not an approved bot, despite being shown the discussions above. These blocks started before the tool even made a single edit. The discussion can be seen User_talk:Jmlk17#Bot_Policy here and here Now the admins are claiming that the account does not meet some kind of flag. This mentioned flag is not listed in the qutoed policy WP:USERNAME and the Accounts infobox specifically states and always has stated that it has no flag.
With 24 fixes of articles with mis-aligned references this bot has clearly demonstrated that it is non-malicious. It has made corrections to articles with multiple lost references and long edit histories [19][20]. Its edit history demonstrates it is operating at such a low edit rate that it is not a factor on Wikipedia Resources. Furthermore it is doing a rather tedious neglected by most editors. A missing reference is a determent to article quality.
While these admins have their hearts in the right place they are creating a Catch 22 situation by applying wikipedia policies incorrectly and enforcing guidelines for guidelines sake with no emphasis paid to individual editor intent. --Lemmey talk 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until its trialed to show its non-malicious. Then it can be removed to ensure that and given final approval. There is no deadline to finishing WP, therefore there is no need to run a tedious process on an account with a BOT-like name until it is approve by BAG. MBisanztalk 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've tried to explain elsewhere, WP:USERNAME says Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", "developer" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.. This is not an account with bot permissions. Same as we would treat LemmeyADMIN. You were unblocked, in lieu of a bot trial, or passing a BRFA (and, you chose to violate those terms, I should add). When one of those conditions is met, we can unblock the account. Not doing so could create the confusion that you are running a vetted, approved bot, which you are not. SQLQuery me! 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument over ADMIN accounts or time limits here, so I'm failing to see what that has to do with this. Clearly this is a BOT account that does not require approval for the mode it is operating in, its mode does not require approval and there is no violation, as I have discussed this with the Bot Approval Group you keep mentioning. As it is operating in semi-automatic mode the onus is on the blocking admin to show that it is malicious, not on the user to defend itself from preemptive blocks. --Lemmey talk 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've each made our cases. I eagerly await an uninvolved party's opinion. SQLQuery me! 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, there was an oldid diff given to disucussion on my talkpage, which has seen further discussion, it's presently here, and, will be moved to my talkpage archives, should it receive no further comment in 24 hours. SQLQuery me! 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy determines bot permissions? Antelantalk 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, refers back to being approved as a bot, which, that account is not, either. SQLQuery me! 08:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the name, I don't see any part of policy that explicitly deals with this situation. On the one hand, Lemmey is operating a bot, approval of which he presumably thinks will be forthcoming. On the other hand, he doesn't yet have approval. I can see where there is disagreement, but again, I don't see the solution for this precise situation spelled out in the policy. Regarding the usage of the bot, the policy states, "Bots must be approved before they may operate.", but then immediately goes on to state, "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox." So operating this bot should be noncontroversial provided that the edits are infrequent, and are to test pages. Antelantalk 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I asked the BAG in the question linked in the first paragraph. --Lemmey talk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." If it's not a bot, then it shouldn't have bot in the name. If it is a bot, then BRFA is where you should go. You said:
This bot is Currently Operating in Manual Confirmation Mode and as such does not require a BOT approval.
So you basically said it wasn't a bot, therefore calling it FooBOT would be the username violation. QTC 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I said it was a bot that didn't require approval as I was told by the BAG. --Lemmey talk 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) If it's really an issue, couldn't you just run the bot under a different name until it gets approval, then move the script to the preferred bot name at that time? Antelantalk 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". Oh no I'm not going down that road. --Lemmey talk 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, ask for (which you did) trial approval (used to figure out the bot), and, wait for trial approval (which you did not). Heck, had it stayed in userspace, I doubt anyone would have cared. SQLQuery me! 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The request as stated above is inteded so the bot can run in automatic mode. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BOTS: "Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval, provided that test edits are very low in number and frequency, and are restricted to test pages such as the sandbox. Such test edits may be made from any user account.". Antelantalk 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and that includes the LemmeyBOT account. --Lemmey talk 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes. But the LemmyBOT account is not allowed, because only bot-accounts may contain the string BOT, and LemmyBOT doesn't meet the definition of a bot-account, at least not on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia definition is "an account with a bot flag or an account being used in line with a BAG trial process", and your account isn't. So it's against the username policy, it's so simple! —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BOTS the flag is not fundamentally linked to the BOT account. and as per my conversations with the BAG approval is not needed. It is a BOT is requires a BOT account, but it does not require approval. --Lemmey talk 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. If the consensus here is that only flagged bots are bots, then that's the decision. Please read through the page I linked carefully. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you intended to link something to the work 'here' you have not shown consensus. I don't appreciate the panderizing as I have shown two separate discussions with BAG officals over the fact that there can be BOTs that do not require approval (and therefore don't get flags) --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had the bot edit the mainspace prior to getting approval on the bot account. these edits were not in a sandbox of any sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not disputing that, Ryulong. I'm following the advice of the BAG as you will read in the top of the section. --Lemmey talk 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way that I read the policy, this bot-to-be should be (1) editing only non-mainspace pages, and (2) named a non-BOT name until it is approved. At that time, grab it a BOT-name and turn it onto the mainspace. Am I missing something obvious here? Antelantalk 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will then be blocked for "running an unapproved bot on a non bot account". --Lemmey talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do these tests outside of the article space then there is no problem with that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not tests, they are corrections of complex errors in the references of articles. --Lemmey talk 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make a page in your user subspace with these very errors, and then use your bot code to fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what would be the point of all that? The BOT searchs through the history of the article inorder to fix its references. I couldn't fix a page that started with errors. --Lemmey talk 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(dedent) Statements from the BAG (since nobody reads the links)
:The things you described don't need bot approval as long as you keep your editing rate low and are authorizing each edit individually. If you want to edit in a sustained way (e.g. 6 edits/min average for twenty minutes or more), then you should consider getting a bot flag. Someone will probably let you know if your editing rate makes you look too botlike. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Any script which is either 1) used to edit "fast", or 2) used to do "a lot" of edits in total, or 3) does not involve a Yes/No for each individual edit, should in my opinion be reviewed for technical and policy compliance. Exactly what "fast" and "a lot" might mean is unclear, but I think if you're planning to use a script to modify 10000 articles, you ought to have consensus and not use a buggy script. Gimmetrow 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My guideline is "Anything which decides on the edits to make itself" needs bot approval. That is, a mass-deletion script that takes a list of pages as input does not, but a bot which decides which pages to delete does. — Werdnatalk 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict - bah - what Werdna said]
Sorry, but this is completely ridiculous.
Of course it's OK to use a script or bot to propose edits which are manually checked and submitted.
No, no-one needs any approval for this, and running in a non-bot-flagged account is entirely appropriate.
The user name issue is a silly over-reading of badly-drafted policy.
In short, I see nothing wrong with Lemmey's use of a semi-automated script to make helpful suggestions to himself, as long as it's human-checked and not done at too high a speed as to be potentially disruptive (though a less tart turn of phrase might help ;-)). People, please AGF and remember IAR and common sense. :-)
Yes, exactly. What we have here is essentially a manual trial of a proposed bot, something which is entirely sensible. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
where is my trout and cluestick? Lemmey is mainly correct here, he should have waited for an approved trail, but a few test edits are also OK, those BAG and admins who say otherwise need hit with cluestick. where has common sense gone to nowadays? βcommand 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like this bot highlighted its limited test role in its edit summaries. Perhaps all admins are suspicious of rogue unverifiable bots. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world? When the bot was blocked it had made only 4 edits. It clearly wasn't a vandalbot. Personally, I think a good-faith bot account doing something useful (and not something routinely denied bot accounts) should pretty much automatically get a 10 or 20 edit allowance for testing. That way, when they come to BRFA, there is something for BAG to look at. Gimmetrow 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I got into an incident with Sceptre in which I proposed a recreation of Encyclopedia Dramatica on Wikipedia:Deletion Review and he unilaterally closed my review as "disruptive" despite not being an administrator. Though this is off topic, I am aware that I am going to immediately attract attention for having admitted to be in favor of the article's recreation so I will explain my rationale. Please ignore the center paragraph if you are only interested in hearing about the incident.
First off, I believe that the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes) gets 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches presumably due to its offensive content. Second, I believe that the site is covered by reliable sources. Third, I believe that much of the controversy that centers around the proposal of recreating the article comes from editors who dislike the site because of the personal attacks it has made (I have had my photo uploaded to the site and placed in an article without my consent myself), but I believe that Wikipedia is not censored and that ED should not be excluded from the encyclopedia because it offends people. Also, it's worth noting that I find it strange that many editors do not want the article in Wikipedia presumably because it offends them (until recently, the reason given for the "protected against recreation" status of the page "Encyclopedia Dramatica" read "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreaded. Ever." If something offended me I would want it exposed in broad daylight for what it is to as many people as possible. But this is irrelevant and I'm not here to argue about whether the site should be recreated or not. I'll save that for deletion review. I am posting it here to satisfy curiosity as to why I would want to see the site's article recreated. I will also mention that I have written a revised version of User:Shii's draft.
As I was saying, I created a new deletion review for Encyclopedia Dramatica and Sceptre immediately closed it as "disruption [21]. Ironically, he was the one being disruptive by closing a nom despite not being an admin and without giving a clear reason. "Disruptive request" is not a clear reason. I reverted this, and Sceptre proceeded to use rollback and eventually Twinkle to continue to revert my edits to the page, marking them as "vandalism" with Twinkle [22][23][24]. He also reverted two comments I placed on his talk page asking him to stop [25][26] and even a report I placed on WP:AN of our dispute.[27], My final revert of his edit was reverted by User:Undead warrior using rollback [28], another non-admin who had no business closing a legitimate deletion review. As result of the incident, I was blocked for disruption, while Sceptre and Undead warrior were not, and I will point out that I was never given a clear reason for being blocked, and as a result I have permanent record of having been blocked for "disruptive editing" in my block log. The only violation of policy I believe I could have been possibly held responsible for is breaking the 3RR, though this was never cited as a reason for my block, and in the context I do not believe I was violating the 3RR, as Sceptre's edits were clearly ones he had no business making. I have emailed both users informing them of what they did and that I would file a request to have their rollback and Twinkle privileges suspended if they continued such behavior in the future, and have received two responses from Undead warrior (I will forward these emails to a user upon request) which basically claimed that my edits were "vandalism" and cited WP:SNOW (which isn't policy) as his reason for unilaterally closing the nom despite not being an administrator. I will leave notices on both their talk pages of this thread. I don't recommend a block for either one of them, as that would be punitive, but I do believe they should both be given a stern warning by someone other than myself.--UrbanRose 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, Sceptre does seem to have been grossly abusing Twinkle/rollback, mis-labelling vandalism and removing a thread from ANI - very naughty. Your request didn't seem disruptive to me. But let's hear what he has to say. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption was in the numerous requests you were making, despite being told that this wasn't going to happen. I have seen you on another site taking your above argument (in itself pretty vacuous) to the extreme of "if an article offends people, Wikipedia should doubly have it". Now, you were not blocked for 3RR -- I don't know where that idea came from. You were blocked for clear disruption when it should not have been hard to work out what was reasonable behaviour. To call Sceptre's actions "abuse" is a major exaggeration of reality, though perhaps his actions could have benefited from further reflection. Sam Korn(smoddy) 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the article was created multiple times is because the first time the closing admin requested a draft. I returned with a draft and created a second review so it may have looked like it had gone through a legitimate review and that I was reposting it out of frustration, but I wasn't. There is no policy that says that an article cannot be proposed for recreation on the grounds that it offends people. And why I mention the 3RR is that that is the only violation of policy which I technically violated. You cite me as having been disruptive yet fail to make clear any specific violation of policy on my part. And no, I don't believe that calling Sceptre's behavior anything less than abuse is merited. Reverting well intended edits as vandalism, acting as an admin when he isn't and removing notices of our dispute from WP:AN is clearly abuse.--UrbanRose 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also advised you against redoing it as it had already been rejected before. You seem determined to force the point on ED and this is undoubtedly disruptive. Look, you don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing - offering youtube as a reliable source for recreation of this article is never going to wash. I also advised you to read the last DRV understand why it failed and not bother unless you could address all the issues. You clearly didn't do this so let me be blunt. If you carry this on any more you will get blocked again because no-one wants to play. I'm not calling you a troll but your actions are undoubtedly trollish. Please stop before it escalates. SpartazHumbug! 12:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, being disruptive is itself against policy... Sam Korn(smoddy) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV has been clear on this topic: a new draft must be written first. The article will not be undeleted or unsalted before that happens. Creating a second DRV right after the first was closed does seem rather disruptive, especially when you made a virtually identical argument. Scepter's reversions were not abusive. If you really want an ED article, write a new draft in your userspace before continuing. -- Kesh (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a revised draft. And in my second review, I listed a link to the draft. And also, Korn, you say that "being disruptive" is a violation of policy in itself. Define "being disruptive". That can mean basically anything you want it to. If you can name a specific policy I violated, I will accept it, but just saying that someone is "being disruptive" is not giving a straight answer.--UrbanRose 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a draft. It's a collection of links. As for behavior, check out WP:DISRUPT. -- Kesh (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please call me "Sam", if you will.
Of course being disruptive is in and of itself against policy. It can be seen by anyone with a hint of common sense. It is not defined for precisely this reason -- that users who are being disruptive can be prevented from skirting round the edge of the rules and avoiding sanction. Sam Korn(smoddy) 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one's behaviour looks great in that edit history. If Urban Rose had an issue with a non-admin close of the DRV, she should have asked an admin to review it. Edit warring over the close was disruptive and I think a block was valid. That said, Sceptre was not justified in using rollback - Urban Rose was not vandalising the page. I agree that in this case, the rollback tool was used inappropriately. WjBscribe 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Rose is being clearly disruptive and is borderline Wikistalking me (see her WR posts as 'Pussy Galore'). Why are we even having this conversation? Sceptre(talk) 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You revert my post on WP:AN and then wonder why were having this conversation? The posts I made to the deletion review could have been justly reverted as disruptive, but your reverting my posts on Wikipedia:AN was blatantly disruptive. And what ever I said about you on Wikipedia Review isn't stalking, how ever rude it may have been. And no, Sceptre, having tried to get the article Encyclopedia Dramatica recreated (something which I'll probably never do again) is not stalking either.--UrbanRose 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in general agreement with WJBscribe here. I get the general feeling that these two users have had bad relations both on and off-wiki and now that has resulted in the two enduring a strained relation over the course of this DRV event. Some diffs that may be helpful are [29], [30] etc. Saying that, Urban Rose seems to have reflected and repented on her actions here.Rudget (Help?) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: Users have both been warned That's nice and all, but how many times do we have to warn Sceptre to stop abusing rollback before it's taken away? I warned him twice in February, [31][32] as did Sam Korn,[33], and Stifle warned him again in April.[34]. Now, we've added Twinkle abuse to the mix, and we give another warning? - auburnpilottalk 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with AuburnPilot on this. Even if UrbanRose was being disruptive, there is no way Sceptre should have deleted the W:AN report which concerned his own actions. No excuse. JodyB talk 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AP, stop being so restrictive over rollback. If this was an admin who did the rollback, people would say "never mind". Besides, rollback was justified in all three cases (it's allowed on BLPs, and it's standard response on Doctor Who episode lists - ask Edokter). As UR pointed out on several occasions, I did get 11,000 edits in March, 5000 of which are rollbacks. That's a good enough reason for me keeping rollback. Rollback is, and I quote someone on IRC, "undo on speed". Sceptre(talk) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, you're not an admin. If you'd like to demonstrate admin-type authority, then please submit an RfA. Barring that, please ask for admin assistance when you need it. AuburnPilot is right. Kellyhi! 18:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is a technical switch, not a position of authority. Sceptre(talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are flat out wrong, Sceptre. There is no exemption for use on BLP issues or a " Doctor Who episode clause". It is blatantly unacceptable for you to use it on edits that are anything other than vandalism. - auburnpilottalk 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that says rollback must not be used to get rid of anything but vandalism. It can be used for reverting any unconstructive edit. Sceptre(talk) 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{ec)That's precisely the thing I would expect a de-sysopped admin who wants the tools back to say. I still believe AuburnPilot is right. Kellyhi! 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the deadminship request was voluntary, but how did the requests for readminship go? Kellyhi! 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that ArbCom had pretty much concluded that there is no encyclopedic value in having an article on ED, and that links to the site were not permitted under WP:EL (I think that was part of the BADSITES arbitration). Recreation of this particular article subject at any time is a pretty POINTy exercise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just woke up, but I'll put in my two cents. I did not abuse rollback. I saw a large deal reverted earlier, and I reverted it back. I honestly thought that Sceptre was an admin, so I reverted the text back to his version. After I did that, I recieved a harrassing email, and now there is a thread about me that basically pokes fun at my ways, name, and methods. I don't know why this even became a problem. Undeath (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Situation normal. Some people are absolutely intent on having an article on ED, and regard any resistance as inherently abusive, which was actually the problem in the first place since it was the work of admins removing an article with zero reliable sources that started them down the path of putting up attack pages. As far as I'm concerned this one can stay gone until Jimbo himself re-creates it. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that as I was reading this thread, I was getting more and more horrified, the more I read. I have no opinion either way on the re-creation of the Dramatica article, but Sceptre reverting another editor and accusing them of vandalism? Multiple times? Then when that editor complains at AN, Sceptre deletes their message?[35] Sorry, I think Sceptre does a lot of other great things on Wikipedia, but he is way out of line on this one. Just a couple days ago I was looking into another Sceptre-related incident on ANI, where one of Sceptre's enemies, Pixelface, was blocked. My uninvolved view was that the block was inappropriate,[36] because both Sceptre and the other editor were at fault, especially as Sceptre was going to Pixelface's talkpage while Pixelface was blocked, and telling him to "shut up".[37] Don't get me wrong, I think that Sceptre is usually a fine editor and a great writer, but evidently when he gets angry, he thinks he has the right to "silence" people he disagrees with. This is compounded by him accusing them of "vandalism" or "trolling". But the final straw for me is that Sceptre felt that he could do this at AN as well, and delete someone's complaint about him. That's far past what's allowable. At a very minimum, Sceptre's rollback privileges should be removed. And if others felt that Sceptre should be blocked to stop this disruption, I would not oppose. Sceptre, read WP:VANDAL. You must stop referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Even when they're disruptive, they're still not vandalism. You have to learn the difference. --Elonka 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, Sceptre's access to rollback should probably be removed until he demonstrates better judgment regarding its use. Kellyhi! 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have growing concerns about Sceptre's behavior in general. He seems to revel in kicking his enemies when they are down and is constantly condescending and hostile to anyone who has a different opinion about almost anything. He has a habit of going out of his way to escalate disputes. His inappropriate use of rollback is really just the beginning of my concerns. I regretfully believe that the rollback privilege should be removed as this user shows no indication of learning from past mistakes. I would urge Sceptre to consider more carefully his behavior in general and his approach toward other Wikipedians. --JayHenry (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't support the recreation of ED, but it doesn't mean that I therefore support any tactic of anyone opposed to an ED article, and my concerns are in no way limited to this situation. --JayHenry (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist message
Resolved.
Within some hour I am going to add a watchlist message looking something like this:
We are now standardising message boxes for image and category pages. Take a look at {{imbox}} and {{cambox}} and have your say at their talk pages. [dismiss]
Since I am not a native English speaker this message text might need some fixing. Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
The reason we need a watchlist messsage is that back when we standardised the article message boxes we did announce it pretty much everywhere, still lots of people afterwards dropped in and said: "Why didn't you announce it? You should have done a watchlist message."
Good stuff David, I'd say this is closer to conversational English
We are now standardising message boxes for image and category pages. Please review the proposed templates at {{imbox}} and {{cambox}} and place comments at their respective talk pages. [dismiss]
Ah, thanks MBisanz. Your suggestion is similar to the suggestion I received when I asked on IRC:
We are now standardising message boxes for image and category pages. Please look at {{imbox}} and {{cambox}} and comment at their talk pages. [dismiss]
So "please" and "comment" seems to be the words of choice. I think I will go with the shorter one since I think watchlist message should be short, and it is not really about the templates but about the style of the message boxes.
I have a large complaint against User:Urban Rose. He/she has verbally attacked/humiliated me at this website. I take great offense to being called a "Seventh grade admin wannabe." The user even posted my REAL NAME on the thread to begin with until it was later removed. That, I take, to be a direct attack against me. I want something done. Undeath (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A personal attack against a Wikipedian on Wikipedia Review? Whatever next. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the strange fact that the user is using a site to cause defamation against me. "I dunno, he just seems like the sort of kid you don't want your own kids in the same school with, if you know what I'm sayin'." → is even from the site from another user. I don't think that the user should be able to get away with this. Wikipedia review, whatever it is, should not be excluded. The user used Wikipedia to obtain my email, which gave him/her my name, which he/she used to post evil things against me. Undeath (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a single person here who hasn't been attacked on WR (although I do have the dubious honour of being called "one of the good guys" by them once). If you can think of a solution to them, we'd love to hear it... — iridescent 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Unresolved
Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk · contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison ❤ 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - all the above checked. Blocked a bunch of TOR nodes as well as some more accounts - Alison ❤ 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved.