Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142

I noticed today, that the TOR check on Template:Anontools, no longer works, and, the service that it refers to is also not up. For instance, see this example. Anyone have any good ideas on what to replace it with? Template:Anontools appears on the bottom of every IP talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] - since it only accepts POST queries, all that's needed is a simple Javascript page, maybe on the toolserver, to bounce people there. Plus, you can check individual nodes' exit policies regarding Wikiepdia (208.80.152.2:80). east.718 at 13:44, May 1, 2008

It's a little rough around the edges as I just whipped it up over the last 20 minutes, but here ya go. :)

✽

13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Threw something together to interface with kgprog: [2] east.718 at 14:05, May 1, 2008

I too, put something together :) [3] SQL^{Query me!} 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, with three good options here, which should go into the anontools template? Or is it worth having multiple tests (sort of a belt and suspenders approach)? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks Like I'm slow on the draw, the link in the template has been updated - to East718's version, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, however, the bright green there is a little hard to read (for me, course, I am a little biased :P )... SQL^{Query me!} 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be a little upset with me. They would appear to be 66.103.50.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who just got blocked by me for edits like this. Rather than react to it and have someone complain I was just seeking revenge I bring it here. I would have left the comments on my talk page but seeing as it includes stuff about another editor I removed it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A long-overdue indef block as a vandal-only account has been applied. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make such an inquiry, and do direct me to the right place if that's the case. I recently lost the password for my main account,

If you have a spam filter, check that. Did you specify an email address in your preferences? If you haven't, and answer yes, try again. If you have, or answer no, either switch off the filter or give up (respectively). Try

WP:HD next time...... Dendodge.Talk^Help

16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As you confirmed on your main account that you used to use this account, if all else fails you may be able to beg a developer to help you out, but they generally have better things to do. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As another project from the ArbCom-created

I have made a new proposal regarding images here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#New_proposal_on_images - I would appreciate any comments, suggestions, advice etc. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

24.15.123.48 needs another block for ban evasion. Was previously blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of community banned Nasz; see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.[4] Has returned to the same group of articles with edits that demonstrate the same agenda as previously. Please intervene with the tools. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly same editor, based on subject matter and content of edits. Blocked IP 6 months; seems static, but I hardly ever block an IP longer than that because of how little I understand how IP reassignment works. If someone wants to make it longer, they have 6 months to figure out how long. If you think it will get reassigned sooner, use your judgement on shortening, it's likely better than mine. --

barneca (talk

) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like long enough. Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Wade Edwards and Malia Obama are kids of presidential candidates. Wade Edwards was not deleted even though it's a stub. Neither was Cate Edwards, which was subject to a AFD. However, it looks like Malia Obama, a girl and a black person is being deleted.

I can see why "other crap exists" is used. But we do need to make sure articles are treated equally. We should delete a black girl and keep a white boy. We should treat articles fairly and the SAME.

Help solve this problem. Suggestions? How do we ensure racial equality and gender equality? Watchingobama (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm I seriously do not see how that is evidence of racial discrimination :/ ...more like jumping to conclusions in my opinion. It also appears you are

soapboxing about this matter on many different forums and I would suggest you to stop. This is not a matter that requires administrative attention.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk)

21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -Emerson.

Wade and Cate have other reasons to be notable; Wade's death was constantly mentioned in the media and by Edwards, Cate is an adult who appears to have achieved some borderline notabilty of her own. Malia is a 9 year old kid. Not the same situation. --

barneca (talk

) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a "No Kids" rule. Watchingobama (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But we do have a

You're not notable rule. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See history of Cate Edwards. The person named G---- did it. I'm not trying to tattle on that person but I don't want to 3RR. Just put the AFD tag back. Watchingobama (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AFDs only last for 7 days. The one you were adding is closed. Nakon 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I reopened it because the old one was more than a year old. Graz11 deleted it. This is wrong because both that article and Malia Obama are similar yet the white girl's get kept but the black girl's looks like it will be deleted.Watchingobama (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

^talk

21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot reopen pre-existing AFDs. You need to create a new nomination.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD creation process seems to have confused Watchingobama[5] (and honestly, who can blame him for being confused), so I've left some step by step instructions on his talk page and also offered to file the AFD on his behalf if my step by step instructions aren't helpful enough.[6] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the

P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Many already blocked in March by User:John Reaves; others whacked today

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three accounts were created around 22:40 yesterday, with usernames Sticks & Stones (talk · contribs), They may break my bones (talk · contribs), and Usernames won't hurt me (talk · contribs).

Another group of accounts, possibly related to the three above, are

•  Confirmed 211 socks now listed at User:Thatcher/sockfarm. Who feels like robo-blocking? (Leave me a note when they're done, please. Thatcher 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert me if I'm off base, but I'm going to break that list into blocks of 20, and we can tag them when they're done to avoid duplicating efforts. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. It took me 15 minutes just to wikifomat the list from the checkuser output so I could post it. Thatcher 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. One section was already blocked in March by John Reaves, so I'll work through the others. Is there a puppetmaster I should tag each page with, or just the usual template? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother with tagging. They're disposable accounts created by someone with too much time on his hand, and caught before they were used. And it wasn't the Pope Lister guy, so I would just block. Thatcher 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess at the sockpuppeteer was based on the similarity to some "Pope" and "Judge" usernames (although similar names have probably been created by more than one person). Also I have noticed another group of accounts, with usernames of Star Wars characters (see

Snigbrook ^(talk)

13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Names? Thatcher 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2-1B (Too-onebee) (talk · contribs)
• 8D8 (Atedeate) (talk · contribs)
• Aarrba the Hutt (talk · contribs)
• Aayla Secura (talk · contribs)
• Achk Med-Beq (talk · contribs)
• Adi Gallia (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Firmus Piett (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Daala (talk · contribs)
• Admiral Kendal Ozzel (talk · contribs)
• Aidan Bok (talk · contribs)
• Ainlee Teem (talk · contribs)
• A'kal Vincolan (talk · contribs)
• Ak-rev (talk · contribs)
• Aks Moe (talk · contribs)

Created between 05:33 and 06:02, I can't see any more after that. --

Snigbrook ^(talk)

13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tor sockfarm. Thatcher 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Knocked out sections 1 and 2, and finished out 3. Some of the usernames are slightly amusing. seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See

I'm getting sick of it, WTF is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stradlin21 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What warnings? Your talk page doesn't exist. --Kbdank71 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it does now, but there are no warnings on it. --Kbdank71 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because someone using your IP is being warned and will only happen when you are logged out. If you stay logged in, you won't have this problem in the fututre. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but it says even when the user is logged in. --Kbdank71 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the timestamps on the bot notices? Rudget (Help?) 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Those with a flair for detective work and/or a familiarity with banned user

 Confirmed - per the subequently filed RFCU case - Alison ^❤ 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When I do a whois on 142.25.147.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), it says "British Columbia Systems Corporation", then gives an email address @bc.gov.ca. Does that mean that this IP is editing from government offices? Corvus cornix_talk 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 cornix_talk 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

The backlog at

New episodes are available. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Episode 10: guests Seth Finkelstein of The Guardian, Matt Sanchez (Bluemarine) of Worldnetdaily, and David Shankbone of Wikinews
  .
• Episode 11: guest Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press
  .
• Episode 12
  : (just the usual suspects from NTWW).
• Episode 13: guest Gerard Meijssen (GerardM), Open Progress Foundation
  Chairman.

We need some eyeballs to examine the validity regarding this report.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So I was looking through the page history of the

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)

Does vandalism of this article pick up around Mother's Day? That might be one explaination, since that's coming up in the US. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Given that history of steady vandalism over time, I can't disagree. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

We accidentally blocked regular spaces (again). The problem should be fixed now. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. — 

t/c

) 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{

a/c

) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Gladys J Cortez

02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Gladys J Cortez

03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [7]

. 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".

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 {{

barneca (talk

) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

barneca (talk

) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

• {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.
  β^{_{command 2}}
  14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

_(1 == 2)^Until

16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

_(1 == 2)^Until

16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Do we need to give every gwap vandal 4 warnings before blocking now?

Obviously not. What point are you trying to make? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Resolved

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)

Mmm apparently you managed to create it afterwards. Probably a technical issue on our side. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An edit war on a

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Resolved

 – pointless thread, drama magnet, nothing we can do here. --

barneca (talk

) 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're asking us to blindly trust your gut instincts and punish another user for something they've done off-Wikipedia, when this is another user that we know you have abused on another site? Grow up. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that isn't what the user is asking for us to do. But no, UrbanRose, there isn't anything we can do. Perhaps get a new WP dedicated e-mail. - Rjd0060 (talk

) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking that you ask the user if they've done it. Even if they say they have, I don't recommend a block, as one shouldn't block another user for something they've done off wiki.--

Rose

16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in us asking him anyways. Nothing we can do. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want someone else to ask? If you have an issue with the user, talk to them yourself. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right this thread is pointless and should be archived, though I do find it amusing that I am told to "grow up" simply bacause another editor is angry that I have a WR account.--

Rose

16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the only reason I'm telling you to grow up is because you are affiliated with a site that isn't this one, not because you are trying to solicit help in a pathetic off-Wikipedia dispute between you and someone else. You saw right through that ruse. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Undead warrior did the same thing and I don't recall you telling him to "grow up". Could the diffence be that I have a WR account and he doesn't? No, of course it couldn't.--

Rose

16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're asking us to act on unprovable allegations of off-wiki actions when you know very well that we can't and won't act on your own provable actions. See the irony? No more pointless drama, please. -- Vary | Talk 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not me. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Take my advice, don't give your e-mail out to people you don't already trust.

_(1 == 2)^Until

17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony of this whole thread is furthered by the fact UrbanRose has complained about the immaturity of other users at length elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regulars of this noticeboard may be interested in a new noticeboard I set up. More info here, comments would be appreciated.

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)

I'm not happy with new users using Twinkle, so I whole-heartedly support this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

✽

18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree with the above also. It never should have been there in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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? Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can't we just block the user, rather than disabling Twinkle? — Carl (

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)

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)

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)

• Just block them.
  talk
  ) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Keegan^talk 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Keegan^talk 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

It could be limited to autoconfirmed user, by using some JavaScript like wgUserGroups.join(' ').match(/\bautoconfirmed\b/). — Dispenser 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The correct link is at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#Non-Admin_Native_Rollback_Implementation. DuncanHill (talk

) 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Twinkle is still usable by anyone with an account with our without its presence in the gadgets. Viridae^Talk 11:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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" [9] (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)

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? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't believe there was any. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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.

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)

Thanks - unfortunately it does not appear to be working for me. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work because East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted it despite there being an ongoing debate about whether it should have been removed from gadgets. DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that in his contribs or logs. Where?

t/e

20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

18:45 on 29th April, I found it by watchlisting MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js and looking at how it appears in my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this link will shew it - [10]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

t/e

20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that page had been deleted, have restored it. _→AzaToth 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

WP:UAA that are done with Twinkle by largely ignorant editors) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I can edit without twinkle but you apparently think I shouldn't have it either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

t/e

15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Kiril Lokshin's proposal at

t/e

15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks interesting and makes some good points. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

Support;

1. t/e
   15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
2. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. By removing it, we are causing disruption - making us as bad as vandals...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose;

1. 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)
2. Same as EVula. Ral315 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. Easy enough to install. Rudget (Help?) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
6. 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)

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???

Spartaz ^Humbug!

19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Support _→AzaToth 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  I don't know if this was your intention, but this certainly made me laugh. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse upon specific flavouring. Rudget (Help?) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should slap them with some sort of generic twinkle template, personally.
  H₂O
  ) 11:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• No, per
  WP:AGF. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me
  ) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Resolved

 – seems to be clear now --Rodhullandemu 03:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The

AWB Request page has entries that are more than 24 hours old. As stated on the page, I am notifying this on WP:AN. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up

) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing BAG membership request

I've put myself up for BAG membership (God that sounds lame) on

here. Any comments / questions / votes (zomg votes!) are welcome. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk

) 05:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for this board and

ANI

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)

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?

thew 2008

17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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) Antelan^talk 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Import idea

I know Skynet will be brought up, but I know other wikipedia's have admin

β^{_{command 2}}

15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

What do you mean review a case?

β^{_{command 2}}

15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter, I read it wrong. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

more reading

β^{_{command 2}}

16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

see

β^_command

22:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{

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."

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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 {{

cambox

}} and place comments at their respective talk pages.   [dismiss]

MBisanz ^talk 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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 {{

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.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the shorter version is better. MBisanz ^talk 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz. I have now put the watchlist message on-line. But improvements are of course still welcome. After all, this is a wiki.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if people are aware of this already... (rexcurry.net)

Rexcurry.net is pretending to be wikipedia in its page titles, etc. See this google search. Pretty sure this is a trademark violation, not sure who to notify.

talk

) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any trademark violation. They're just using search terms to make it look like they have a Wikipedia article, to funnel clicks to their site. Underhanded and pathetic, yes, but I'm not seeing any real legal issue. -- Kesh (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely illegal per Brookfield communications (the facts in that case were search engine manipulation using metatags, but this is clearly analogous).

talk

) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

About.com does the same thing as far as simulating wikipedia headings, but it explicitly sources wikipedia (although it doesn't link to it) and contains actual wikipedia content. Though without version histories its impossible to know if the content has been 'sanitized'--

talk

21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still #1 for Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think anyone sane is googling newdow anyway. --

talk

20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just the one page, AFAICT, and just your bog-standard anti-Wikipedia page at that. Curiously, it's being done because we're all nazis, writing secret nazi propaganda. I had thought we were all Communists, writing secret Communist propaganda. That's when we were not busy being liberals, writing secret liberal propaganda, of course. Or homosexuals, writing secret homosexual propaganda. Although, I can't help but wonder how this would actually work. Should I be inserting, into otherwise innocent articles, subliminal messages of some sort? "Wikipedia is a Web 2.0 community-sourced encyclopedia. Buggery is actually quite enjoyable. It was founded by Jimbo Wales in 2001. Redistribute wealth. Originally running on the servers of Bomis.com Property is theft it is now run by a not-for-profit foundation. sieg heil." Have I convinced anyone? ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

talk

21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• That guy is not getting any more sane with time, is he? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think its nice when people
    talk
    21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Apparently the pledge is the new Time Cube. Who knew? --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ray's great and all as a founder, but he really needs to break ways with Old-TC theory. Everyone knows that the TSquare rotates vertically. The newTC theory was even proved when hurricane Katrina drew a perfect vertical square on the TC plane as it made landfall. --
        talk
        21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

<title>Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and shocking

photographs exposed here. News, reference material, library, links, collections, in this Pledge of Allegiance homepage. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SCHOOLS, EDUCATION, TEACHERS, HIGH SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pledging Allegiance, Nazi salute http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%204.jpg Fascist salute http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%202.jpg Pledge Of Allegiance to the Christian Flag, Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy, Swastika, Matt Crypto, Holocaust, Paris Hilton, Dr. R. Curry, Pledge Of Allegiance, Rex Curry, Pledge

Of Allegiance</title>

Its in the title tags..--Hu12 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust, Paris Hilton. hmmmm --

talk

21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 2008 (UK)

This page is constantly getting edited almost every hour and these edits are usually rumours or offensive language that could offend the average person viewing the page. I have discussed it in the talk page and we have come to the conclusion that the page should be Semi-protection. Could someone please help.

 Done --Rodhullandemu 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

Fuck WP:DENY, we have a serious problem here. I don't want my watchlist looking like this every day:

1. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
2. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
3. (Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia over redirect (vandalism)
4. (Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6))
5. (Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (vandalism)
6. (diff) (hist) . . Something Nice Back Home‎; 11:18 . . (+32) . . 78.156.210.247 (Talk) (da:)
7. (diff) (hist) . . Amy Winehouse‎; 11:11 . . (-13) . . Wildhartlivie (Talk | contribs) (copy edit)
8. (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])
9. (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])
10. (diff) (hist) . . m List of incomplete Doctor Who serials‎; 10:33 . . (+1) . . Moochocoogle (Talk | contribs) (→Third Doctor)
11. (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)
12. (Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
13. (Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Star Wars' (and the only contributor was 'Luna Santin'))
14. (Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Star Wars over redirect (revert)
15. (Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Star Wars over redirect (revert)
16. (Move log); 09:53 . . Gifðas (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Star Wars to Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)(for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
17. (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)

If only there was someone that could save us... Nakon 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't moves part of the stuff that only auto-confirmed accounts can do? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Register account. Return in a week. Easy street. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its only 4 days. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The sleepers were from 2007. At least one was, in this case. SQL^{Query me!} 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

I imagine that such a solution would have unintended negative side effects. I do support a minimum edit count before autoconfirming, though. —

^talk

21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Add a minimal edit count restriction for autoconfirm, we already have a titleblacklist Mr.Z-man 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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 [11]. --RFBailey (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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...?

t/e

23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.--

Rose

02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We have everything under control. There is no need for alarm. El_C 09:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

H.A.L.! LessHeard vanU (talk

) 12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Having looked at this again I would tend to think that we need some minimum edit count before becoming autoconfirmed.
  talk
  ) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.--

Rose

22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you have no ISP email address? I don't have one.

t/e

23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.--

Rose

02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Rose

02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And again on Clover (creature) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While the vandalism itself doesn't annoy me, it's the fact its flooding watchlists. Where should suggestions to bump up the autoconfirmed limit be made? VPT or VPP? Sceptre ^(talk) 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

And Grawp hit meta this morning.

talk

) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

We already have one IP we know is Grawp's; see

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Grawp IPs. I would also like to point readers of this conversation to my essay on he and his followers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum}

) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've semi'd and bolted one of his favorite targets to the floor; he won't be able to move it anytime soon. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

It would have to be a limit per account, or else legitimate moved might get stymied. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions I haven't seen here that may be helpful for various reasons, mostly Grawp:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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)

• (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)

• 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^_^v E pluribus unum)} 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Think outside the box

1. Limit page move throttle to 1 or 2 per minute - should be enough for most people.
2. Create a permission "fastmove" that allows to move pages at rates unrestricted by above throttle.
3. 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)

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)

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)

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.

β^_command

14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

• 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)
  

I just found [12]; 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)

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)

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)

It's simply another form of phishing. MER-C 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over seven million accounts. If you were to try logging in to each one of them with the password "password", I bet you'd find yourself with a couple thousand accounts, some already well-aged. --Carnildo (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Stronger regexes might help with vandalism using one signature, but it seems plausible a determined vandal might just change the signature. If access to move were based on recent activity, any vandalism of this sort would have a cost regardless of signature. Gimmetrow 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest that this has to be an either-or situation - of course there's no reason why we can't do both, and I would definitely support a reasonable throttle on page moves. But we can do a unicode regex blackout with the tools we already have available, without any developer intervention. Grawp seems fairly well wedded to his "hagger" signature, and unsurprisingly so: if he dropped it, we wouldn't know it was him, and where's the fun in that? Happy‑melon 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, but I don't want to throw it out in the open. Anyone interested can email me for the details. It's a bit complex, but it might be worth it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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?. MBisanz ^talk

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)

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

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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? MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for permission. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I can't imagine the WMF suing Wikipedia... John Reaves 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But what about About.com for scraping it with our userpages... MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.)

talk

) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a Bot request to this end at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2. MBisanz ^talk 07:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been debated time and time again. This is really a discussion for

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)

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)

Necessary - as the foundation fails to protect their copyright/trademark, it loses value and enforcability. WilyD 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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.--Dycedarg ж 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It should be because it includes the Wikipedia globe. WODUP 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)

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 (

t

) 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody better let Nike know that they have to remove their logo from their website then, eh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Incidentally, the issue of screenshots of the main page being non-free has been discussed before. The consensus was to just scroll down a bit when taking the screenshots so that the Wikipedia logo would not be included. See

Image:Opera screenshot.png for example. —Remember the dot ^(talk

) 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[de-indent]

talk

) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

You and Jerry are simply mistaken about the mirroring. We do distribute

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)

WMF Logos: Followup

The following is an email I recieved from

Mike Godwin

while trying to follow-up on this discussion. It is reproduced here with his permission:

I think the key to the confusion lies on the issue of whether the trademarks are being used within projects or outside of projects. If you study trademark law, one of the things you learn is that the purpose of trademark law is not merely to protect the holder of the mark but also to avoid marketplace confusion.

So, if you're just duplicating the mark within your User page (for example), that's not likely something we'd get upset about, since presumably the person viewing the trademark on a User page is not confused into thinking they're somewhere else (some other website) besides a Wikimedia project. (After all, the mark is up there in the lefthand corner, per our usage, anyway.)

What we're asking is that editors and others not use any of the trademarks outside of the projects (except to the extent allowed by nominative fair use, which is fairly narrow). The trademarks are central to our ability to generate revenue outside of donations, so we have to be protective of them. In addition, their use right now communicates to anyone who views any page with the mark that the content derives from a Wikimedia project, is authorized, and is free to reuse, subject to GFDL or another free license. So that's another reason to be protective of the marks.

It is a misreading, however, to infer from any statement I've made that policy has changed. I am definitely *not* going to "confirm that the position now being taken by the WMF is that all logos, marks, and their derivatives may be used without restriction on WMF projects." The reality, based on the demands of trademark law, is that we'll have to police the use of WMF trademarks even within Wikimedia projects (and even within User pages) if there is a chance that the particular use may confuse the public (e.g., about whether WMF is authorizing something) or render the mark generic.

Notice that I have been careful here to avoid "bright-line" statements of affirmative policy. The reason for this is that WMF, while protective of its trademarks, is not normally going to go after a member of the User/editor community if he or she is using a mark in some nonconfusing way (e.g., as a nominative fair use). We love our editor community, and want to avoid conflict with our editors when possible. We ask, however, that folks refrain from unnecessary reuse of the trademarks if they can avoid it, since reserving the use of our marks is going to be central to our efforts to continue growing the scope and functionality of the projects.

In short, I don't believe my remarks are contradictory, but I do admit that one may have to be a little more steeped in trademark law to see immediately that they are not. I speak as a free-speech lawyer who himself had to learn much more about trademark law in depth as part of my training for my current work for the Foundation.

In light of this I would suggest that these changes probably need to be reverted and something more nuanced put in their place. A reference to nominative use is probably a good idea too. Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, thats complex. If someone can think of more fine-tuned wording, let me know and I'll make the edits. Referencing nominative use is probably a good idea, I just am not sure how broadly ("all WMF projects to the extent nominative use permits" is a tortured sentence). MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted my original change on Commons; [13]. Please contact me here or there if an agreed wording is produced.

H₂O

) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Urban Rose

verbally attacking me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

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)

• A personal attack against a Wikipedian on Wikipedia Review? Whatever next. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Undeath, join the club.  :) Seriously though, with sites like that, my recommendation is to ignore them. The more attention that is paid to a hate site, the more it encourages them, and the more traffic they draw. And to actually have one of their victims openly complaining? That's like an instant guarantee of 10 times more traffic. Take it from me, the best way to kill these sites, is with apathy. If nobody cares about them, and nobody reacts to whatever they say, they'll eventually get bored and move on. --Elonka 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sociopaths there have ever even mentioned me. Even when quoting me, they forget to cite their sources. I'm shocked and appalled. Or possibly completely indifferent. Either way works. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the Review occasionally, and am always disappointed I'm not mentioned. They did speculate that I'm a sock of

talk · contribs) once, but it didn't gain traction. The best thing you can do, Undead warrior, is to ignore it. - auburnpilot talk

19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would normally ignore it, but they used my real life name.

User:Urban Rose obtained that via wikipedia. I think, that since the problem originated here, that the user who started it all should have some type of consequence. Undeath (talk

) 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

<-We don't punish here, and if you made your RL identity public via Wikipedia or email, then there's nothing we can do about that either. If the person mentions it here on Wikipedia, then we can. But not until. We have no jurisdiction over other sites. You've already got the name removed on WR; if you are still unhappy, you'll have to take it up with the sociopaths there. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeath- calling it "defamation"- is that a

legal threat to the person saying it? How is it "defamation" for them merely to voice their opinion? And are you sure it's urban rose- if it's on another site we cannot even verify it's her, the person could just be impersonating her.Merkin's mum

23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't re-format my words. I called it defamation because that's what it is. I'm not saying that I'm talking about legal action. Defamation is just a word that fit my predicament. It's opinion for a while, but when my real name is associated with my wikipedia account + I am called things like "Seventh grade admin wannabe" etc... that is defamation. Undeath (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has happened to you but seriously, you're crazy doing this. If I were you, I would quickly archive this thread because you're just drawing attention to it and quoting their comments above is just crazy. Now thousands of people who never even look at Wikipedia Review know all this information about you, is that really what you want? We don't do punitive blocks here so none of us are going to block this person because you gave them your name freely and they then went to Wikipedia Review to complain about you, so I can't see anything coming out of this thread which would satisfy you. I can only suggest you archive this thread and move on and in future don't reveal your name to people you don't know if you're worried about such things, even if that means registering a new email address specifically for Wikipedia. It's an important lesson for all editors on Wikipedia. Sarah 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. There's a reason the emails you get from admins come from Hotmail accounts... If you give your personal details to anyone on teh interwebs - even here - you only have yourself to blame, unfortunately. —

iridescent

01:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As Guy would say, sometimes you call a spade a spade (for that matter, you should check out some of Guy's comments). You shouldn't be reverting deletion reviews and calling them vandalism. That puts you in the wannabe admin category. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because there was a blocked user who had undid a revision which was made by a user who I thought was an admin. It looked like vandalism/block evading to me. Oh well, someone archive this. Undeath (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did make a snide comment about this user on Wikipedia review, and did originally give out his real name (though I've since removed it), but my comment was far from "defamatory" and I didn't send him any "harrasing" emails. I will forward a copy of the two emails I send him as well as two very immature emails that I received from this user to any admin upon request. The second of the two emails I sent him I also posted on the Wikipedia review thread (titled "Undead warrior") that he is describing.--

Rose

11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently problematic user

I figured I'd post this here since I don't exactly know what the right thing to do is in these circumstances but User:CheetahKeeper persists in posing as an admin/bureaucrat, and just reverted my edit removing the false information. -- Mentisock 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the boxes from their userpage, alerted them of this thread, and left a warning here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mentisock 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the user page. The user says s/he has joined various other Wikis. Only one other has been joined and it was Wikispecies. I just wanted to mention that. Rgoodermote  23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was aware of that. However, this obvious forgery indicates the user is being obviously deceptive.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noted that in the talk history when I went sniffing around. Wondering how anyone could think they could get away with that. Before I become a nuisance have a good one.Rgoodermote  00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The username CheetahKeeper also does not exist in many of the Wikimedia projects they listed. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long... —

iridescent

01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So we have deception and forgery here. Thats obvious, but was any actual harm done? Did the user use his faked credentials to give weight to his edits or discussions? If not I think the only actual resolution here is for somebody to explain what he did was wrong and for the rest of us to point and laugh at him. CheetahKeeper -> Cheat a Keeper(wikipedia? keeper of information) --

talk

05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the recent contribs of CheetahKeeper and reverted a few block notices on IP talk pages. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Notices in 'I am blocking you'?, 'I will block you?', or 'You may be blocked if you continue...'? --

talk

05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual block notices that admins like myself use to notify a user of a block. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that is a clear indication of harm to users, harm to the authority/respect of admins, and harm to the image of wikipedia regardless of weather or not the user deserved any such notice. If I were in the position I would have instituted a 90 block. How old are the notices and can you provide links? --

talk

05:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←I also removed this banner in which she threatened to block anyone who changed the name of the article. I'm not familiar with the established consensus on that page, but I can't see it being compatible with either blocking policy or

WP:BRD. --Bfigura ^(talk

) 05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two notices that I reverted, they seem to be a few days old: [14], [15]. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As these are still recent and overtly in violation of Pillar4-Code of Conduct I suggest a block of not less than 89 days. (On a lighter note I cut off a day because he is right about the tiger being Siberian.) --

talk

06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns however am concerned that MBK has falsified information. i have never blocked anyone i have only merely suggested that they will be blocked if they continue there vandalism which i do believe ANY editor has the right to say/post, all i have ever done is revert vandalism, does anyone wish to deny or disprove that?? i think not. I have caused no harm and have infact helped in a small way to stem a number of vandals i have welcomed new users and helped them. I did not delete your notice it was infact archived ""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CheetahKeeper/Archive_May_2008"" Your concerns are valid and i respect them.CheetahKeeper (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... "all i have ever done is revert vandalism, does anyone wish to deny or disprove that?? i think not." So how does impersonating Jimbo fit into that? —

iridescent

12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement "i have never blocked anyone" is only true because the community has never invested you with the tools required to block anyone. Looking at your edit history, you have a long pattern of impersonating administrators and leaving duplicitious block messages. This one was over a year ago. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming to have blocked someone when you aren't even able to do that and impersonating Jimbo are certainly much more than "revert[ing] vandalism", and are completely unacceptable behavior.

^Sing

14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this warning issued by

^talk

15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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;

"

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in any discussion on the project. Any uninvolved administrator may block him for an appropriate length of time should he break any of his restrictions. Further more, he must enter into a mentorship program with Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA

)."

I'd appreciate thoughts on this, I honestly believe Jack still has a lot to give. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• If Ryan's prepared to give him another shot, I'm happy to go with his judgment (as usual).
  Bencherlite^Talk
  22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Get in line, get in line :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support so long as he abides by the restrictions above. I've been in constant private contact with him via email. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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

  t
  02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Per Dmcdevit's amazingly accurate argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. Keegan^talk 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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. Keegan^talk 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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).
    ☎
    10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 Dissident^Talk 10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 Dissident^Talk 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
• Tentative support. Concerned per Dmcdevit—willing to AGF, but any interaction (AT ALL) with White Cat, and he's gone, IMO.
  H₂O
  ) 11:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose He's already wasted enough good-will, we don't need to suffer any more of the
  talk
  ) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• Only acceptable if he avoids AfDs. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho!
  13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

So the message is sock-puppetting and arbitration sanctions don't matter as long as you keep up with your social networking.

talk

) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comment: Just so it's clear what we're discussing. At least ALL of the following were confirmed to be Jack's accounts:

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomas Jerome Newton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senang Hati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Dmcdevit's checkuser findings[19] and Jack's editing pattern (this was before Jack later admitted[20] to being a sock, which led to him being banned). I just wanted to clear that up. --Pixelface (talk
    ) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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
  WP:AGF here that a tiger can change his stripes. BOZ (talk
  ) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• He created
  WP:COI with Indonesian Development of Education and Permaculture [22]--Hu12 (talk
  ) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • That might hold true for general unblocks, not for controversial ones (for example, those that which receive significant opposition at admin noticeboard). If what you said were correct, then the practice would be: just try to become the first to block someone controversial if you intend to unlock them later, since things will be relatively easier then. I'm not talking about this situation, just merely pointing out what's wrong generally with your argument. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• It should be noted, that the some of remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek do not refer to a finite period of time, and are therefore still in effect (or am I missing something here?). These include a topic ban on Turkey and Kurdish issues, prohibition from harassing Cat and enforcement by blocks. – Sadalmelik (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Quite true. This has been discussed with the AC and with the mentors. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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...)