Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive52

Anyone know if there's a more or less complete list of maintenance activities anywhere and who does them? Seems like there could be a table with daily/weekly things that need to get done with a list of folks (or bots) who do them. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started a list at Wikipedia:Maintenance/tasklist. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason Soroski is a regional artist in Southeast Texas, and I was approached to enter an article about him, as he is growing in interest here lately. When I heard the article no longer existed, and verifyid it myself, I was a bit confused. He is not a "national" act, but does deserve recognition to the local scene in Texas and Missouri. I am unaware as to whether anyone else edited the page but myself. Please let me know if this article can be restored. Thank you.

Arthur Kransboldt [email protected]

From the deletion log, the article was deleted by

Wikipedia:Undeletion policy (it might be best to talk to user:Mushroom about it first). -- Rick Block (talk

) 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How should I deal with this user? They're new, but they refuse to respond to my questions on their talkpage, upload unsourced images, write articles of questionable notability (does a special DVD edition of an album deserve an article?) and erase my deletion tags. Someone help!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For info, User:88.107.111.55 altered the external links on 13 articles about companies/products in order to introduce links which earn a revenue via users.buy.at. I have reverted all the edits before this post, but having not seen or heard of this before I thought it might be worth flagging up. Ian3055 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I burned the links out

Kevin_b_er

03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to investigate the editing of the Turnbull & Asser web page by the ip user 80.168.52.51 which according to this site belongs to Turnbull & Asser. You will find a number of contributions to the article here. As you will notice these are severely POV and you can understand why I went and did a WHOIS search. Thanks for any assistance you can muster. MyNameIsNotBob 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• You realize we're not exactly shy about doing WHOIS searches, I mean we have
  a template that does actually does them for you--172.131.172.185
  23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do realise this, but am wondering whether there is a place where this information should be made public - not every WHOIS search directs to corporate IPs muddling with information. MyNameIsNotBob 23:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to tag IP editor's talk pages with the information from a $whois [IP ADDRESS] using a template I created {{ispinfo}}. To use the template you just type in {{subst:ispinfo|COPIED AND PASTED WHOIS INFO}} and that way editors can quickly glance at the talk page to see if a pattern corresponding to the ISP of the IP user and their edits is evident. I've just tagged this IPs talk page using it. (→Netscott) 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, there are WHOIS links at the bottom of every IP talkpage anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the page of

Dispute resolution is →

Over there. User:Zoe|^(talk)

02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, hope this is the right place to post this. There is a user adding future tags to just about everything that may have something ever happen again with the subject. I don't know what to tell him or if it is appropriated. I reverted him twice before I saw he did/is doing it a lot. What should be done? Here are the user's contributions. The user is User:Aafm. Thanks, Newnam^(talk) 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The template he's adding is {{Future spaceflight}} and the selection of articles he's adding it to looks just fine to me. All it shows is this:

This article or section contains information regarding current or future spaceflight. Due to the nature of the content, details may change dramatically as the launch date approaches and more information becomes available. Delays are also common as launches are sometimes cancelled.

Can you be more specific about what aspect of this you object to? Reswobslc 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. I was concerned with the addition of the tag to all of the space shuttles and space agencies. It can be a little misleading to have the tag on a shuttle that is not currently on or will soon be on a mission. With the space agencies, if the tag is needed now, then it will always be needed (until the agency goes defunct), and therefore, IMO, isn't appropriate because the "future" aspect of the subject is integral enough to the subject to not have an alert at the top of the page. Each space shuttle will have a time when it speculates on a future flight, but for most of them, that time is not yet, and for that reason the tag is miseading on those pages. If I am way off-base, let me know...it just seems that the tag (as most on WP) is being overused. Sorry for the rambling, and thanks for the imput, Newnam^(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with him? Perhaps he might agree with you. It is not as though he is vandalizing those pages or trying to disrupt. Reswobslc 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The trend to use blocks more liberally has been here for a while and, generally, I view it as a good thing. When I came here, 3RR and ArbCom was about the only source of blocks. Wikipedia changed and the policies written originally became outdated. This is all fine and understandable. Admins now issue blocks at once when the bad-faith behavior seems obvious to them or even for other less clear-cut reason. Again, I don't object to this trend. With more and more editors involved in Wikipedia, the danger of loosing potential edits became of lesser priority but the benefit from preventing the disruption outweighs the cost. However, certain blocks alarm me and I request trigger-happy admins, as well as anyone interested to calmly consider the following case-studies below. Recently, four valuable editors have received some short and medium blocks: Lysy (talk · contribs), Mikkalai (talk · contribs), Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs).

The first user in the list (blocked now for 8 hours) have shown some clear head and good judgement despite his having rather strong views on the issues. The other three (each of them having their own issues no doubt) are WIkipedia's Golden Contributors, true treasures of Wikipedia by the amount of the exceptional quality content they add to it on the daily basis. Take out those three and perhaps 10 more people, and Wikipedia would lose about half of its value. Since, according to

Let's have a quick look at these 4 block histories:

• reported the violation to 3RR board and following which Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ) (status held since March 2006) blocked both for 8 hours. Lysy, now grossly offended, requests an apology and the one doesn't seem coming. Lysy is obviously aggravated. The polite warning to him would have certainly have the effect without aggravation.
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) who was abusing the articles though open proxies IPs to avoid 3RR. Many people remember that block, Mikka behaved as really and seriously offended and demanded an apology, which was never issued. I was very much afraid that we are loosing this invaluable Wikipedian. Thanks god, things cooled off and Mikka is around, one of the most valuable editors and no-nonsense admins
• WP:ANI. This wasn't done. Block was issued and only then the guidance was sought. Please read the entire section "Third Opinion Please"
  above.
• Piotrus (talk · contribs) is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable contributor to the Polish topics, also one of more neutral ones (we can only be neutral to a degree when writing about own nation). Last April he was blocked for an edit conflict at the Red Army. The conflict was obviously with a Sock, a new account that did nothing but edit warred with Piotrus and quickly ran to WP:3RR with a report. [That block was issued by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), not exactly a newbie Admin but known for being exceptionally stern in throwing blocks including the lengthy ones (I do not consider that bad per se, to the contrary, old policies with soft approach are outdated). However, the admin did not bother to check what was going on, to see that a conflicting party was an obvious sock, something he must have done when dealing with an editor like Piotrus. Also, why was a polite warning not sufficient?
• A little different case, but on the same topic. In April Bonaparte (
  Uprising of Khotin. Those 4 edits he produced where not within a 24 hour time frame to begin with, of those only two were reverts, and reverts were not about the content dispute, but on the POV-tag the sock was reinserting to a well sourced article refusing to give a required by the tag explanation at talk. A detailed analysis is here
  but the overall issue is similar. There were plenty of red flags to give a complaint a detailed analysis (submitted by a non-use IP accountr, time stamps in complaint missing, etc) and still the analysis was not done.

Summary. To summarize, I do not advocate any special treatment for anyone just because of his past contributions. Violators should be punished. I also do not advocate the return to softer treatment times. Blocks by judgement are necessary. However, no block should be issued in haste or when someone's own head is hot. Such a common sense rule as studying the matter, especially when the user is established enough to be sure he knew what he was doing (perhaps there were reasons), is no less necessary as before when the blocks were more rare. I submit these thoughts hoping they would help to decrease an amount of future aggravations for all of us. --Irpen 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that a day or two after posting this, Irpen was blocked himself for the first time during his long stay in Wikipedia, evidently as a punishment for Irpen's having started this thread. Another typical case of a controversial block, which should not be undertaken without proper consideration, as per blocking policy. After such a long stay in WP Irpen is getting blocked for the first time... for what?.. has he violated 3RR? nope, his edits were not even reverts, strictly speaking. He just did not care to get adminship early enough and now he will be blocked at whim. I suggest all prolific contributors on Eastern European topics should leave this project to the mercy of trolls, nationalists, rogue admins, and Polish Cabal. Amen, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no

WP:CABAL of administrators, Ghirla, just as there is no 'Polish cabal'. Such offensive remarks are not going to change people's opinion of you for the better, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk

15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to admins: It's a good read --mboverload@ 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have unblocked Lysy, but it is mostly a symbolic gesture as his block was about to expire anyway. I do not think he deserved this block anyway. In the other three cases the blocks have expired, so now we have to mend the hurt feelings of the extremely productive users. People who work more on Wikipedia then on their paid jobs see us, admins, as the people who owe them some gratitude and respect, it is worth to spend a few more minutes before taking an administrative action if we can make solve a problem in a more respectful way. It is easier say than done, obviously ( I am afraid I am guilty in a harsh 3RR block as well), but lets try. abakharev 06:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that many young admins are too trigger-happy and prefer to exercise their tools on those who have lots more wikiexperience than themselves, rather than focus on vandals and trolls. I believe Ronline, when blocking Mikka back in December, felt like one of those rogue referees at the

WP:AAP, and that's where the matter ended, as best I know. --Ghirla ^-трёп-

15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will make one comment on factual matters, that is that Lysy requested an apology on my talk page fifteen minutes ago, and this was the very first I had heard of it so could not be expected to make one by the time of this post. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• After consideration, I wish to observe that blocking Lysy did not serve a useful purpose and was incorrect on my behalf. However, I remain on record as saying that he revert warred. I also wish to note that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult or even notify me about unblocking Lysy. For now, though, everything is at its desired state. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Stifle wished to mention here that I've requested an apology on his talk page late and that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult him for unblocking me, I think it should be also noted that I've suggested an apology would be desired immediately in my unblock request while Stifle apparently was busy with other edits. I've also sent him an email asking to have another look at the case. Yet Stifle had chosen to ignore both my unblock request and my email. I could not have written in his talk page as I've been blocked at the time. I had also not emailed any other admin but the one who had blocked me. Alex Bakharev's unblock was more an act of courtesy than anything else, as I had the last hour of my block time left. I believe he could not consult Stifle at that time, as he was unavailable then. All this said, I too think that everything is at its desired state now and consider this case closed. --Lysy^talk 06:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Lysy is only a part of the problem. Pity, there is little interest to what I wrote from others and little feedback. If others don't see the need to avoid aggravating valuable editors unnecessarily by acting hastily and enjoy feeling great by deciding whom to spare and whom to punish without due care, we will be loosing editors that we could have kept. So be it if others don't see the problem caused by simply lack of due diligence in disposing of admin duties that has so sensitive consequence. --Irpen 04:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you found a wrong page to raise the issue. Do you seriously think that any admin will discuss the problem of admin's responsibility? Don't be naive. Rogue admins block content creators because they know that no punishment or investigation will ensue. As I said many times, there is no such thing as admin's responsibility in this project. No defrocking procedures, nothing at all. It's clear from the above summary that admins, who were given tools to counter vandals and trolls, increasingly turn them towards some of the most prolific content creators, while the others either connive or don't care. As all the above blocks are clearly in violation of the Blocking policy (see "Controversial blocks" section), they not only expose the ignorance of blocking admins in WP guidelines but also should be subjected to a detailed scrutiny in separate RfCs, not here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment is that while I agree that administrators should be careful and considerate when administering blocks, the errors or misjudgements will happen - that's understandable and expectable. I do however fully support Irpen's summary of the issue. --Lysy^talk 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pity, there is little interest to what I wrote from others and little feedback. Maybe you were just so thorough that no-one found anything to add and so careful that no-one found anything to disagree with :) Haukur 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can be interested in this discussion about the policy.--Pokipsy76 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to publicly compliment Irpen for his excellent, and quite detailed analysis of the matter in his above remarks. His summary is also right on the money. For a non-Native English speaker your contributions are superb. A second reading of his remarks and some reflection on them, would do us all a lot of good. Dr. Dan 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla is probably right about, nothing coming of this, at least not on this page. Nevertheless, better that the idea goes "on record", at this time. Irpen, I re-translated or copyedited the title. I think this conveys your point a little better. Forgive my presumptiousness (sic), for doing so, and change it back if you think the original is better. Dr. Dan 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice summary of a problem. I probably would be harsher in describing Ghira's behaviour but then I am not objective here so I won't :) So back to the main issue: what to do? I'd suggest introducing some rule (or guideline) that when considering blocking an experienced contributor (how do we define experienced?) admin should consider warning the user instead. On the other hand, there are users who are known to completly disregard warnings, and for those, I am afraid blocking maybe the only 'shock' strong enough to make them more cooperative. Nonetheless I'd suggest that when in doubt, admin should warn the party (parties) involve, if he sees they are composed of experienced editors. Block should be the last resort, talk should always be first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, before even warning, double check! Maybe there is a good reason. Actually, always double check and when dealing with Piotrus, Mikka, Ghirla or alike tripple check. There is likely a reason for what you see since these users know policies. Second, do warn, unless you are crystal clear that the block is deserved. When in slightest doubt talk first and ask at WP:ANI. Third, never use admin tools or even admin clout in the edit conlict you are involved. If block of the edit conflict opponent in the conflict is warranted, use

I'm not sure about the warnings in case of 3RR violations. An experienced editor would know that he's violating the 3RR and that he should not be doing this. Certainly we can assume that an experienced editor knows the policies better than a novice does. --Lysy^talk 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But what to do when user deletes warnings and his common reply to criticism is their deletion ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])? In such a case it seems to me like blocking is the only remaining course of action, and it seems to me it had a desired effect (caused the user to rethink his position). I do hope that Ghirl returns when he has matured enough to be a civil contributor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, exactly because experienced users usually know that they violate 3RR it is worthwhile to check that maybe there are reasons for it. For instance, they are dealing with a sock or a vandal or a sneaky vandal/sock whose account looks like a newbie's one but who apparently knows how to quickly submit a 3RR report, like the one who caused Piotrus' block or the one that caused the first Mikka's block and who managed to get myself "warned" by William who did not bother to check at that time.

Piotrus, I find your using even this very page to continue your anti-Ghirla crusade totally appalling, I am sorry. You may be happy though, since he indeed have left, at least for now. --Irpen 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I think I should point out that the term like 'anti-Ghirla crusade' maybe considered a personal attack, as it creates an impression I am making remaks designed to hurt or otherwise attack Ghirla - although I am sure you didn't mean it it that way. As you have started this thread, and lumped together me, Halibutt and Mikka with Ghirla, I thought I would point out that not all cases are as similar as you make them out to be. I will not comment on my case, and I agree with your use of Halibutt and Mikka's cases to illustrate the problems with some blocks, but in case of Ghirla, I am afraid his block was long, long overdue. Still, I would much prefer the outcome that sees Ghirla educated in wikiquette and such, back here, and building encyclopedia with us then scenario involving him not being here. However, the current scenario of him being here, creating valuable content while being impolite, biting newbies, calling estabilished users trolls, engaging in revert wars and generally creating an unfriendly working atmoshere left much to be desired. Whether it is better to have an uncivil but prolific editor, or not have him at all, is a complex matter, but I think all can agree that the best outcome would be to have a civil and prolific editor. Hopefully where years of carrots and appeasment in form of talking have not worked, some ban-sticks may yet yeld that desired effect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you know I don't talk with you until you are

defrocked. Your unqualified happiness at my departure is premature, as after reading all of your recent triumphant postings celebrating the successful end of your months-long anti-Ghirlandajo crusade, I may want to review my decision and to return to contributing on Polish-related topics. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп-

07:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This "threat" is exactly what I was talking about. Ghirla, I hope you come back, but I hope you will learn how to behave, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, please try to reconcile your differences. You are both valuable editors, and the English Wikipedia is best served by having both of you contribute, despite some of your differences. Under this discussion thread, please try to stay focused on the issue raised by Irpen-- hasty blocks of valuable content editors in general, which I think we all can agree is an important matter deserving serious consideration. 172 | Talk 08:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 172 and could not help but point out that this exchange of spats here was started by Piotrus who carried his grudge against Ghirla even to this thread which is about a totally unrelated matter: what an admin should do when an editor like those two seems to be deserving a block.

As for the issue itself, I already suggested the answer: do block, but not without a thorough investigation, because perhaps, what may seem like a block-deserving behavior may turn out to be a legitimate dealing with a sock, vandal, troll or

What grudge? What spats? I agree with you almost completly, with the exception that I think Ghirla deserved his block, and you are doing yourself a disservice by using example of Ghirla, a user warned by ArbCom about his behaviour, in arguing for an otherwise worthy case which I wholeheartly support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocked just for inquiring why I was previously blocked on Admin Nlu's discussion page. Then Nlu went back to the Administrator's noticeboard and deleted my notice of his/her violation of the 3RR rule on my discussion page. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)

This is not relevant to this thread. The three revert rule does not apply to vandalism.

(talk)

08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is against the rules to delete a 3RR review request - if Nlu felt justified, the issue should have been addressed, not deleted. This point is relevant in that Admins have authority without having to answer to anybody, which as we all know from Stanford_prison_experiment, can be counterproductive. - Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins

This looks to me like a content dispute spilling over onto this page. I cannot see any comments by you to either his talk page or the administrator's noticeboard for 3RR violations. Checking the deletion log, I cannot see any comments that have been "deleted" by him, either. I am therefore forced to believe that you are (a) Lying; and (b) Unjustified in using this space as a soapbox.

(talk)

09:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example, then - I was just threatened with a block by Nlu for not using my signature on his user page - he claims it is an act of vandalism. I can find nowhere on the wiki site that not leaving your signature can be construed as an act of vandalism. I think this is a clear abuse of admin powers. And I like my signature the way it is, Werdna648, so please stop changing it. Wikipedia allows me to use an unlinked signature - it it wasn't allowed, it wouldn't be made a standard option on my setup screen. -Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)

I don't want to do this. They are great users who've been around for a while. But, it goes without saying that User:Hydnjo is a role account. Period. Thus, shouldn't they be blocked? The answer is yes, of course, but I haven't blocked them yet because these are two very nice users that folks generally seem to like, who have never hidden that the account was shared (although, unless I've missed something, it hasn't really been pointed out that it is technically a role account) and who contribute good work to the project. This is a tough call: We have a job to do, which will risk losing two great users, or we have a job to ignore, which makes our jobs harder in the future. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• A husband and wife role account, I say not to block as they are good faith editors, and it's not like they share their account with a group of friends, etc.
  ^{wat's sup}
  00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. Apply common sense. They're good, nay superb, editors. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly, no. The only reason we block role accounts is that it we don't know exactly who mades which edit, for GFDL purposes; but in these cases, where two individuals are closely connected, there is an extremely low probability of any trouble if the exact person is not identified. (Is the husband going to sue the wife for a misatributed Wikipedia edit? No. Come on.) As they are not causing any trouble, but the contrary is true, there is no reason to block. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing on meta about GFDL issues, although even Hydnjo's contributions could be a theoretical concern if GFDL is an issue. I think a bigger picture needs to be reviewed here: does allowing the first and so far only non-Foundation role account force the community into creating a process of role-account-approval? Because, you know, what's good for the goose... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is most likely not the first shared account, nor will it be the last; it's just being pointed out right now. We do not suggest using accounts this way ever, but no harm no foul. What's the worst case scenario here, they get divorced and havea custody battle for their edit attributions? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you 'don't want to do this'...then don't. For one, it's bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a

POINT

. To wit, "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong..."; "[one should not]use...Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy." Suggesting that we ban two perfectly good and highly productive editors because you believe that there has been a breach of a technicality is...well, how about you tell me? What do you hope to accomplish by this?

Second, it's only a rather ungenerous reading of the rules that would demand that the account be blocked anyway. From

WP:SOCK#Role accounts

(my emphasis):

Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The one currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.

We should congratulate the exceptional editors Hydnjo for their unofficially sanctioned role account that, despite the likelihood that it would be blocked, hasn't been.

Finally, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. If the sockpuppet policy lags a bit behind actual practice, or fails to exhaustively describe and consider all possible situations, we ought to update the policy or – perhaps more wisely – simply acknowledge that this project's rules are necessarily flexible sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a husband and wife team and they're good editors then let them be. I think it's sweet. Ask yourself WWJD? ("What would Jimbo do?") --mboverload@ 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the current role account policy? ~ PseudoSudo 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm *blush*, if this is of any help, I'll add that I (Joe) have been doing all of the keyboarding (see [7] [8] [9] [10]). Although the username in question is indeed a neologism constructed from our names, and although many first person references are plural, I find no evidence that this problem is anything more than a tribute to my wife's inspiration to and patience with my WP contributions. In that way, she feels a part of the goings on around here and I see nothing wrong or confusing about that. Thanks to all for your kind words of support. --hydnjo talk 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Jeffrey Gustafson sharing his concerns; that is the correct action, of course. However, I agree with the others that I don't feel any further action is necessary. I believe following the spirit of our policies is far more important than following the letter; they are not laws which we must abide by (nor is the lack of a policy automatically make an action acceptable). I think this is just one of the areas we use our judgment; I've been aware of Heidi and Joe's shared account for quite some time now (and I consider them wiki-friends), but I am quite comfortable in my assessment that community opinion would favor their continuing. I don't really see how GFDL could be a concern if we allow edits from unregistered users. Of course, I'd be unlikely to support a shared account gaining access to administrator privileges. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem here. In my opinion anything which helps blind people contribute is probably a good thing. Haukur 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the support for Hydnjo. A husband providing all the keyboarding for himself and a legally-blind wife who would have some difficulty keyboarding otherwise is a very different situation from a dozen employees using an account to edit an article on their company (for example). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view, this account is technically really only used by Joe... it is just that Heidi gives him most of the suggestions and advice... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The circumstances here are unique. There appears to be no problem whatsoever, and no likelihood of a problem. Consensus is obviously strongly in approval. The blindness issue mentioned demands special dispensation. There are always exceptions - this is one of them, but it should be noted it is a very specific exception. Tyrenius 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Judge Mills Lane "I'll allow it." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with this account. Everything posted to Wikipedia from that account is posted by Joe. As I see it, he (they?) chose the name Hydnjo to emphasize the sharedness of their thoughts, since Heidi is blind and cannot post messages herself. It's not as if Heidi logs on on Monday and Joe on Tuesday. Nor do I think that Joe types his own posts on one occasion and has Heidi dictate to him what to say on another. As far as I know, every use of first person singular referred to Joe, but he used the username to acknowledge the influence she has on his thoughts. AnnH ♫ 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone blocks this account, I will unblock it and block the block-ity block block blocker for being a total blockhead. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, as it goes against an obvious community consensus for special dispensation. Tyrenius 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we can say that this is our "officially sanctioned" role account, and if so, could we ammend the role account section to include this account? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a role account. If only one person is doing the posting, then it is a one person account. There is no rule against allowing others to look over your shoulder. Even if it were a role account, obviously it is non-abusive and should not be blocked. NoSeptember 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at

152.163.100.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) It seems like people have gone a bit crazy with AOL IP blocks in the last few days. Just because you can give an insanely long IP block doesn't mean you have to--152.163.100.200 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

HAsn't there been a vandalbot attack from AOL ranges recently? That might explain it.Circeus 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's always one form of attack or another, but whatever vandal was using that IP probably continued to use it for about 5 or 6 minutes before passing it on, which means about 6 days, and 23 hours worth of needless collateral damage--152.163.100.200 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't consider preventing AOLers from editing anonymously to be much in the way of collateral damage. As long as the block was applied properly registered users can still edit.

Thatcher131

02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the vandal, and it would have (and did) prevent me from editing, several times in a row, long after the vandal had moved on I'm sure, that does seem like collateral damage.--152.163.100.200 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reasons for you to not work as a registered user? abakharev 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was my block. I have removed it now. Frankly I was impressed by the amount of vandalism from this particular IP and by a complete absence of productive edits. Still assuming that allocation of IPs by AOL is not completely random and that the number of determined vandals using AOL as an open proxy is low, then long blocks on a few AOL IPs would significantly reduce the amount of vandalism from there. The only collateral damage will be that some users would have to spend a few seconds to register. abakharev 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, god forbid, change ISPs. No one has a right to edit Wikipedia, it is a privilege granted by the foundation and its agents. If it turns out that we gain more by blocking AOL, then so be it. If it means that much to you, then change ISPs. This isn't the mid-90s anymore - there are more than enough ISPs for anyone in any location in America to choose from. --Golbez 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I must promote here local ISPs. They tend to have a small IP pool and not have many Wikipedians on them. Also, because they're small, collateral damage inflictors don't focus on them. Using a local ISP, I've never been autoblocked. ~

56297

18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone look into this user? His username appears to be in violation of our username policy. This user has been here for a while, but nothing has been done about it. — The King of Kings 17:55 July 16 '06

Wow. King of Kings vs. the Antichrist. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ironic, but my signature isn't a religious referance, its a referance to a song. — The King of Kings 18:03 July 16 '06

Which specific part of the policy is violated? Do you have any evidence that the user is disrupting the project? I briefly reviewed his/her contributions, and didn't see anything obviously amiss. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically,

WP:USERNAME

which the policy states:

Inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. Inflammatory usernames consist of names like... and Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs.

— The King of Kings 18:13 July 16 '06

The characters listed are pretty major, the heads of various religions. The 'antichrist' is only referenced in one part of the bible and isn't actually an '

User:Peter be subject to this as well? - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Um.. no. Peter and Thomas are common names, the name "Anti-christ", is not. I think that Christ is just a big a "character" as you said as God, Allah, Jehovah or Buddah. Point is, Christ, and being anti-, could offend editors religious beliefs as could saying being anti-god, anti-buddah, etc. and policy says username blocks can be applyed to said names. At the least, he should be encouraged to change his username. — The King of Kings 21:26 July 16 '06

The user name is wholly inappropriate. It is synonymous with using "Satan" as a user name, and any argument about how that's just an angel and only some people think it's the source of evil would just be silly. We rule out usernames where people cleverly try multilingual puns and numerical combinations to get to "fart" or "lesbians are yummy" or similar, so this is well past the line. Geogre 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with user:Jmabel that I see zero difference between the offensiveness potential of Antichrist and King of Kings. Both users are quite consciously flouting the letter while disingenously arguing no intent to flout the spirit of the rule. Both the letter and spirit of the rule are to avoid user names that a large proportion of readers are likely to take as a religious allusion, either positively or negatively. All we need is an accumulation of names chosen to press others' buttons! I really doubt the veracity of those who claim that they are unaware of the religious connotation but who don't cheerfully say "oops, didn't mean that, i'll pick a name that doesn't annoy people" when it is pointed out. alteripse 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alterprise, if you bothered to see my comment above that the name King of Kings which is just my signature, is in reference to the King of Kings song, not a religious reference. I did know about the religious reference it was never intended on being it nor do I want it to be because of annoyances like this. — The King of Kings 15:03 July 17 '06

Of course I "bothered to read" your comment. Your "I didn't intend it as a religious reference" defense was exactly what I was referring to. There is no point asking people not to use a certain class of username if the user can say "oh I wasn't referring to that Mohammed" or that banned user. I, and this policy, don't really care what you had in mind, if to a large proportion of our readers it immediately conjures a holy or an unholy or a politically offensive name. If it was chosen in good faith and you didn't intend the religious allusion, then why not actually prove the good faith by changing it? If you really don't understand what your username means to most of us, just google "king of kings" and see what more than 90% of the hits refer to. So we either have a policy of asking people not to choose religious names, or misleading names, or banned names, or politically offensive names, or names that immediately suggest any of those to most of our readers, or we don't. But it makes no sense to have a policy that can be evaded by saying "mohammed really refers to the name of my neighbors' iguana". I don't really care whether you keep it or not, but the hypocrisy when you supported the policy against another username made comment irresistible. alteripse 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think your

assume good faith switch has been disengaged. You and the policy don't care? I do believe it's just you that doesn't care. In good faith, I would and have asked everyone who had a problem with it to ignore it, and if you really had a problem with it, I would refractor on their talk page if I chose to comment there. I think changing my signature would only prove that I was pressured and bullied into something I didn't want to do, in which I won't change. I won't change my signature because of a Motorhead reference, if you don't like it, I ask you to look the other way because policy doesn't say anything about not making a reference to a song. 90% of the google results show that King of Kings probably refers to the religious reference because it's been around since BC times. The song I make reference to has been popular since March of this year. Theres a few hundred thousand years differance between our topics. The "Mohammed the iguana" comment you made was a little irrelevant, eh? Mohammed the iguana doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, but does the topic in which my signature is based upon? Yes there is an article. The "song reference" isn't something I just pulled out my ass. Its a popular song by a popular band, so live with it. Now excuse me while I puke to your Ad hominem attacks. — The King of Kings

03:58 July 18 '06

Wow. Do you do realize, Moe, that fighting fire with fire doesn't actually put that first fire out? Alteripse is, to some degree, correct. Your name is not as inappropriate as Antichrist's, but the correlation is nothing short of ironic. However, the name Muhammad is not even close to comprable to what we have here. Muhammad is a very popular name (the most popular in the world) and so signing up as Muhammad (which, by the way, no one has done) is not necessarily an insult to Islam (unless the editor is making anti-Islamic statements). Likewise, having the username "Jesus" does not necessarily warrant a block either since it's a popular name (note User:Jesus is not indefinitely blocked, or is that in error?). But Buddha, Allah, God, Antichrist... those are almost always religious references and so, based on the policy and the idea that they may offend easily, they should not be allowed. On "King of Kings", I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for Moe to change it, but I'm not going to make a fuss over it; the song it actually refers to, as far as I know, does not make religious references and the King of Kings article takes awhile to get to the religious references. Regarding the idea Alteripse tried to convey with the iguana example, I agree that we can't just allow people to say "oh I wasn't referring to that [insert religious figure here]", but I think we need to look at each instance individually and try to discern the intention of the user in question. Having a song by the same name does not automatically make a username okay. Yes, there is a song entitled "King of Kings". But there is also a song entitled "God", but "God" is certainly not a reasonable username. -- joturner 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossing out "Antichrist". I'll take a wait-and-see approach on this person. -- joturner 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But, responding to you, even if someone made a reference to the song God it would still be making a religious reference because its a religious song by a Christian group. Motorhead is far from a religious musical group. — The King of Kings 05:31 July 18 '06

I think both King of Kings and The Antichrist are not generally innapropriate, yes some people might find them innapropriate but they aren't generally considered innapropriate nor do they really fall under the famous people or inflammatory sections of it, I'd suggest this be taken to RFC for wider commment, unless of course there's enough comments from people here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"King of kings" can be a reference to God or Jesus, yes, but hundreds of rulers both BC and AD have also taken that title: see

King of kings. "Antichrist" can only refer to the Biblical figure. --Carnildo

18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And a multitude of other things, King of Kings (disambiguation), in which mine is a Motörhead reference. — The King of Kings 21:38 July 17 '06

Irreguardless of "King of Kings" being inflammatory or not (not even a username in this case even), "Antichrist has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth". So yeah, a self-procolaimation of being pure evil and a liar. Its basically the devil/satan to christians. Politics and flame wars, like to throw this term around as an insult to the opposing side. Vandals like to redirect articles about people, like

Kevin_b_er

02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This user's sparse list of contributions suggests for a moment that he edited

Til Death (film) he pointed out that heroin is something that everybody hates (which may come as news to its consumers). Nobody's going to think he's the antichrist, and I haven't heard of any worshippers of the antichrist who are likely to be offended. Yes of course his name is potentially inflammatory, as we're in a culture where the small-minded imagine slights everywhere: consider for example the signature "Kevin_b_er", for the significance of whose underscores some very silly and simple people could imagine anything. -- The Antihoary of the Antihoaries

02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As above: if we stick to the subject under consideration, "antichrist" is an inappropriate user name. Forget examining the trees when you're looking for the forest, please. "King of kings" is a common self-appointed title throughout history. "Prince of peace" is not. "Antichrist" absolutely is not. There can be no ambiguity, there. Geogre 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What about User:False Prophet, who has been contributing for nearly four months? Now, we have a problem. We can't possibly say "Anti-Christ" is inappropriate and not say "False Prophet" is inappropriate. -- joturner 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are again pointing at the trees. The question is whether this particular user name is inappropriate. It is. Arguing by analogy for precedent won't do much good for the conversation. The analogy is invalid as precedent in this case because one can be "a" false prophet, whereas there is only "the" antichrist. Anyone who pretends to be speaking for God and isn't is a false prophet, and the world is and has always been lousy with them. On the other hand, being the antichrist is specifically to claim to be or speak for the son of Satan. It's an entirely different world. One is silly, and the other is infuriating to fundamentalist Christians. Still, we needn't argue by analogy at all. There is one question here: is this an invalid username? Yes, it is. Geogre 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, all I wanted was a second opinion on the situation and apparently there are others who feel indifferant about it. I don't care if he's blocked or not, all I wanted was another opnion. I would appriciate it if this conversation just died out now. — The King of Kings 05:27 July 18 '06

I'm rather troubled by the problems which

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (

Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO

00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --

talk

) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as

WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight ^talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, the existence of

talk

) 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight ^talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your idea about "The Wrong Version". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested. Please continue any discussion there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably if the matter is reported to the Admins' noticeboard, one of the admins will use their "resolve conflict" button. -Splash - tk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to facilitate resolving or deleting old

Instead of having automatically added subcategories for dates, each page could be included in the category sorted by date, like [[Category:Possible copyright violations|20060718]], which would only requiring changing the templates and would no worse than the monolithic categories we already have. This I just conceived. Is there a reason why PROD done the other way? —Centrx→talk • 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a few admins take a bit to look at the backlog at

Tis clear. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone with experience mind helping me nominate someone for adminship? I'd like to nominate User: Catamorphism, but I can't seem to get it right. I've left my nomination at the bottom of my talk page under the message "Consider it done." When some kind soul has done this, would he or she notify me that it has been done so that I may give my heart-felt thanks? Erik the Rude 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else been spammed / sent phishing emails by Herringdoppler (talk · contribs)? Today, he sent me an email via wikipedia which says:

have figured out a way to make profit on wikpda with only a one-time time investment of about 10 minutes. If you are interested, please respond with a blank email message to [email protected]

Perhaps we could buy you a new laptop.

Herringdoppler

If this guy is mass spamming / phishing via wikipedia, an immediate indef block is necessary. --Ragib 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not certain how we approach such off-Wiki activity by registered users but, since I, too, have received this e-mail, I've indef-blocked the user (whose e-mail address indicates he's frustrated with Wikipedia) as a spammer. Feel free to review. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will stop him from using his Wikipedia email. I was under the impression that the Wikipedia email function still works when blocked. JoshuaZ 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to send him an email on my non-WP address and see what happens. Fredil Yupigo 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please put a temporary lock on the Jimi_Hendrix article? There seems to be a tug of war going on with the main infobox picture. The Jimi_hendrix.jpg image (Jimi smoking a cig) seems to be the concensus and longest standing photo, but some folks (and/or their sock puppets) insist on changing it, often to untagged and/or poor quality images. Coupled with the usual torrent of vandalism that occurs there, I think there's enough justification to lock it up for a while. --Zig 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Try

WP:RFPP. KillerChihuahua^?!?

18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page to a pre-edit-war state. Will (message me!) 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The name

The userpage message about the University of Chicago is a little disturbing, but apart from that, a random sampling of the user's contributions shows some pretty good, level-headed edits. His userpage claim about the name is that it derives from the Iron Guard and Søren Kierkegaard. I personally don't see grounds for taking action against this username - he seems more interested in the history of German militarism than in being a fascist. Gwernol 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, as a Romanian Jew, I think calling onself

(edit conflict) It has to go. He's got good edits, but not a good user name. This will be very offensive to some people, e.g. whose relatives were murdered by the Iron Guard, to which we now know this is a reference. We have to be sensitive to its implications. Tyrenius 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% convinced, although clearly there are good arguments against the username. Would GenghisRussell be an offensive username? If so, what about BertrandKhan? The word Iron is clearly not offensive, is the word Khan? We are surely not objecting to Kierkegaard right, so we must be objecting to the word Iron, I guess. Tyrenius reminds me of tyrant, how do I know that wasn't part of your thought process when choosing it? Homey is an offensive term in Australian, so I hope if you push this through, you'll be changing your signature, HOTR? What is Gwernol was an ax murderer from China that I haven't heard of. What it Gwern was? I agree that the Iron Guard were a hateful bunch of murdering fascists. I agree that we shouldn't offend people. I just am not sure that forcing a changename on this user is going to improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can put your mind at rest by reassuring you that the word Tyrant was not part of my thought process, when choosing my user namer, nor for that matter were the words Tyre or Rant, ahem, nor has anybody commented to this effect previously. I think if the Australian offensiveness of Homey had been pointed out at an early stage, then it probably would have been changed. However, there have been cases where something established (which has not been objected to) has been allowed to continue, even though a new use of it would not be allowed. Tyrenius 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For one thing "Irongaard" sounds exactly like "Iron Guard" so a more accurage analogy would be say GenghisCahn for the Mongolian leader and American actor Edward Cahn. As for the offensiveness of Genghis Khan, for it to be an accurate analogy we'll have to wait about 1000 years - AFAIK none of Genghis victims or their children are still alive. The same isn't the case for the victims of the Iron Guard. Homey 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear cut. Its not the terms iron or Kierkegaard that's offensive, it's the combination of those names with clear intent to invoke the term Iron Guard. The fact that the words standing alone don't have offensive meanings is not relevant, just as writing out the alphabet doesn't imply all the offensive things I could use those letters to make. We can surmise about whether the motivation for Tyrenius' username comes from tyrant (not that tyrant is clearly objectionable in the same way); and we can note that many word may have offensive meaning in another language, but here we know specifically that the name is a play on Iron Guard from the horses mouth. The mens rea behind the name is everything.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would we accept a user with a username such as some variant or pun on Schutzstaffel? As a general principle, I don't think naming oneself after a Second World War fascist organisation would be appropriate in any circumstances. -- ChrisO 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if mens rea is everything, then that would imply: a) users should only be offended if they read Irongaard's userpage and find out he meant to invoke Iron Guard, and: b) given that his intention appears to be historical rather than supportive we have to be careful what we read into it. However, I do agree with HOTR's latest point about recency. I think we should ask Irongaard to voluntarily change his username. This seems like a situation where politely pointing out the issues and asking him to change will yield better results than imposing a decision. Gwernol 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I misspoke then. The letter of the naming policy doesn't require intent. Names can be offensive to users regardless of intent. But only in the case of a user who can claim that the name is coincidental does there seem to be any argument that the policy should be excepted. A person whose name was actually aid-off-hittiteler (cruel, insane parents) probably still should not be able to use that username, but would have no excuse if he indicated that his name was based on a fascination with the hittites and nazi Germany (even if he wasn't a nazi sympathizer) and the name was meant as a play on Adolph Hitler. The name alone brings him within the letter of the naming policy prohibition; the admission that it's intentional destroys any excuse that "it has nothing to do with the offensive thing it sounds like" argument.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that offensive user names are not allowed, and this name has already been found offensive, or this discussion wouldn't have started. Tyrenius 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I'm an Italian-American who is offended by your stereotypical username, I can get you to change yours involuntarily as well? I think we need a *little* bit of perspective here; if a user has a questionable username but no questionable edits, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. -- nae'blis _(talk) 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no line in the sand but I hope we can agree that comparing a name which someone out there might theoretically find offensive and a name which could offend a few million people are wholly apples and oranges.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So there aren't a few million Italians or Italian-Americans who would be offended by stereotypical mafia references? --Zig 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Fughettaboutit also. The idea that it is at all acceptable under the policy to have a user name based on a facist group whose stated goal was large scale genocide is simply ridiculous. If we are going to have any sort of restriction on offensive user names, this would have to be included. JoshuaZ 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit is not a mafia term, it is a commonplace ethnic expression. But even if it were, say, a clear reference to mafia, as you thought, the comparison would still be completely unbalanced. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've asked him to remove his offensive statement, and he's declined. I am reluctant to block him given that he has given us some positive contributions, but agree wholeheartedly that the username must change, and feel strongly that his intent to keep that material on his userpage is unacceptable here. For these reasons, I'm applying an indefinite block on the user and blanking his userpage. If anyone has any better ideas, I won't be bothered by a reversal of this decision, but any solution must deal both with the offensive username and keeping appropriate content on his userpage. --Improv 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been resolved -- he'll get a username change and remove the statement, and continue to edit. --Improv 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Improv. An excellent resolution for all concerned, I believe. Gwernol 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, all the whining and witchhunts over "offensive usernames" reminds me of the idiocy of FCC activity against "broadcast indecency", where people got their panties in a wad over stuff like Janet Jackson's breasts or some idiot celebrity saying a cuss word during an awards show or sports event. Is there really any point to going out of your way to be offended by something and insist it be suppressed, instead of just ignoring it? *Dan T.* 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not an apt comparison, because the "broadcast" of wiki (i.e. the articles) are not censored. We are talking about the infrastructure.Tyrenius 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What are the telltale signs of a MascotGuy account? I think I've come across a few, but his supposed edits are always so non-sequitir that I can never tell. I might need to apply for a block if this is confirmed. 68.179.134.228 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go. --Woohookitty^(meow)

06:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

With soft blocks now implemented, I am wondering whether it is now acceptable to block AOL addresses for long durations with soft blocks. Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• well, people are doing it anyway, but for the most part people seem to not quite know how to use them, or don't care to, many people are applying very long IP blocks without using anon-only blocks, and a few others are even selecting prevent account creation. Even worse, forcing all the vandals to register names seems to have caused the amount of autoblocks to sky rocket--AOL user 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's not to say there isn't a silver lining, if an AOL range stays blocked, and account creation stays disabled for the duration (hours, days, weeks) it does prevent people from creating accounts, and of course, prevents them from triggering autoblocks, but that's pretty much only a good solution for people who had accounts prior to the existance of anon-only-blocks--AOL user 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Any AOL user that finds themselves permanently blocked from creating an account at home still only has to go to a library, a cybercaf� or a friend's house once to create an account, then they can use that wherever they like. Of course, even having to go to another IP once is an inconvenience, but personally I don't lie awake at night worrying about AOL users being deterred from using Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs)

• yes, well, I realize that most people would simply block all AOL users regardless of whether they're registered or not, no one left at the end of the day to actually complain about it--AOL user 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I had thought, when this innovation came along, that it wouldn't be a substantial benefit to AOL users, because most of the vandals (probably "most") are using named accounts. However, our IP editors of virtue from AOL (recognize them? they're the ones you don't see because they're helping us along) are going to get blasted anyway. If they tire of being IP's and want to sign up to get the benefits of this innovation, they're going to find that they can't. As for Sam Blanning's recommendation, let's stop with tarring an ISP this large because some of the users are dufuses. We don't do that with other ISP's, and we shouldn't do it here. Saying, "Well, they can just move to another town and buy new equipment and change ISP's" (not what Sam said exactly) is to say, essentially, "We are for the elites." I'm no longer an AOL ISP-owned dialup, but the fact is that the turds vandalizing us are getting their way by getting us to block the helpful with them. Geogre 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why not simply uncheck the box next to "prevent creation of new accounts"? The indef block should be used to prevent anonymous vandalism only, if anyone wants to create an account or log into an existing account, that should still be possible. I'm all for placing this kind of soft block on shared IPs. --woggly 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not soft. You can't edit through it. If a new editor comes across a comma needing fixing, they'll possibly not bother because to go through the registration process (they won't be likely to click the link to see how easy it is) is much more work than the comma-fix itself. Don't kid yourself that any block is at all "soft". It just doesn't affect some people at all; it's as hard as ever on those it hits, and harder still if account creation is blocked also. -Splash - tk 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the interests of registered users only. How does this form of blocking negatively affect registered users? I see only the upside. Whereas in the past, registered users, even admins, who edited from shared IPs, would find themselves autoblocked because of a vandal using the same IP, now it is possible for registered users to continue editing even if the IP is blocked. Isn't this a vast improvement? Honestly, I'm willing to sacrifice the occasional anonymous comma fix in order to prevent massive amounts of anonymous vandalism. Requiring registration from some (by no means all!) users is really not that big a deal. --woggly 05:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Registered users still get hit by autoblocks, only now there are more vandals with registered usernames, causing twice as many autoblocks, even more, some people seem OK with AOL range blocks, but refuse to use anon only blocks, and equally refuse to allow account creation from blocked ranges--205.188.116.200 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The only group of people this is actually an improvment for is the vandals, who are now pretty much imune to IP blocks, and can go through dozens of throwaway accounts before finally giving up--205.188.116.200 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Every now and again, Zeq tells me that I'm doing something wrong by blocking me, and that he'll try to get me de-adminned. A few other people I block also say I should be deadminned. I would like to see what the community as a whole think of my adminship, and whether it should be reconfirmed. (If this is the wrong place, move it. Hey, this is an admins' noticeboard) Will (message me!) 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My only complaint Will is your having blocked me for 15 minutes when I vandalized your vandalism page. There's no doubt about that one, your block was indeed quite inappropriate. (→Netscott) 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was on my vandalism page, true, but it was your intention to spill onto my userpage (as it's transcluded, it's similar to someone vandalising {{Infobox country}}). Will (message me!) 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, on my Mac OS X system there was no spillage. Had I noticed any sort of an effect I would have self-reverted. You simply blocked me without inquiring. That is very wrong. (→Netscott) 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was temporarily spillage. Will (message me!) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about whatever Sceptre/Zeq history exists, but blocks (particularly against established editors) should be used as a last resort and only when neccessary. And, blocking a user without leaving them a message explaining why is just plain wrong. Blocks are for damage control, not punishment. Friday (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I only became aware of the what occurred thanks to another established user who was kind enough to explain to me what happened. On my system I never saw any "temporary spillage"... nothing... normal page... the only page affected was the "Vandalism" page. Unless I get an apology I'm inclined to agree with others who are talking about de-admining. (→Netscott) 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, we have no means of de-adminning. Ideally, any admin that was asked to step down by established editors would voluntarily do so (and stand again if they wished). Of course, those who would voluntarily do so aren't the problem, are they? Friday (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This, of course, is excellent support for my thesis that vandalism sections on userpages are monumentally stupid and should be gotten rid of site-wide. --Cyde↔Weys 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they add nothing to the encyclopedia, nor do they inform us of the editor's areas of expertise or bias. They are inherently silly and disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may have a point there. — 

talk

) _{/ 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)}

If there are four more people who agree I should stand for adminship again before lunchtime (11:15 UTC) tommorrow (I have a holiday to pack for and the basic stuff for most of the week) , I'll request a desysop from a steward and nominate myself. Will (message me!) 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it. Good admins always pick up enemies as part of the job, they can easily defeat you in an RfA if you have enemies. Just look at the history of desysopped admins' RfAs. Leave it to ArbCom to remove the truly bad admins. NoSeptember 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NoSeptember, don't do it. — 

talk

) _{/ 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)}

Indeed, certain folks have been known to be motivated to work against RfAs particularly when they've been demonstrably wronged by an editor requesting adminship and never received an apology. (→Netscott) 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. He writes that "good admins always pick up enemies as part of the job..." I Would like to think I am a good admin, and as far as I know, I don't have any real enemies. I can think of a couple of others probably in my same boat. You can be a good admin and not cause a ruckus. Perhaps "admins that block people or make hard, controversial decisions always pick up enemies..." Maybe I just haven't been around long enough. Whatever. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll know when you've been an admin long enough when the Review start complaining. Will (message me!) 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

LV, you're doing the good protection and deletion work that needs to get done, good job, but I noticed you've only made 4 blocks in the last 3 months. I should hope you have few enemies ;). (note: I am also not all that active in blocking, it takes all types, I wish folks at RfA would remember that not all admins have to be vandal focused) NoSeptember 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, calling me out, eh? Looks like I just found my number one enemy! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! 2 of the 4 oppose voters on your RfA are now indef blocked. You had bigger enemies before you even became an admin. NoSeptember 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just look at Sean Black's RFA ... once you've been an admin for awhile you collect enough random enemies who will come out of the woodwork to oppose. The whole adminship confirmation thing is a fundamentally flawed process. --Cyde↔Weys 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please Sceptre, don't look to get desysopped, you're a good admin IMO. If something really questionable is brought up, theres other ways to dispute resolution than a desysopping. I think as long as your admin, theres always going to be a dispute regarding your actions, but what admin wouldn't potentially have that that problem? — The King of Kings 20:10 July 18 '06

You know when an admin doesn't know how to apologize when something they've done wrong has been demonstrated to them and there's a pattern of that then maybe de-sysoping might not be such a bad idea. (→Netscott) 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott, don't kick him while he's down. I think the only thing that should be suggested to him is to follow his heart regarding if he wants to re-run for adminship or not. — The King of Kings 20:22 July 18 '06

You're kidding? Whose kicking him when "he's down". Is it not clear that my having been blocked was wrong? (→Netscott) 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. He's already suggesting not being an admin anymore which is "down" enough for me. You were blocked by him for 15 minutes, a fairly short time. Although blocks should be a last resort, to him, he had a legitimate reason when doing so and wasn't misusing admin powers when doing it. If you had a problem with your 15 minute block, I suggest taking it to an RFC rather than suggest a desysopping. Desysopping is't exactly something that happens over little matters like this. — The King of Kings 20:34 July 18 '06

The block would have been correct if I had been actively vandalizing his user page directly (and not his actual vandalism page). Are you familiar with the "blocks are not punative" clause of the blocking policy? If you were then you'd know that regardless of wether or not my "vandalism" was bad faith or not (and I assure you it was not) blocking was wrong. Blocks are not to be handed out lightly particularly as they stay in one's record permanently. Again, short of an apology I'm inclined to agree with those who're talking about de-admining. (→Netscott) 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with policy as I stated it should be a last resort, which I was refering to the same policy that states blocks shouldn't be a punishment. He had a reason, and it wasn't for punishment. I would like for you to look, at this [11]. This is the block log of admin Evilphoenix. He has only had one block and it was a 17 second block by Titoxd. I think that situation is very similar to yours, except he had a clean block log and yours was already to say the least, very unclean. I suggest you did what Evilphoenix did and deal with it. It was a month ago, let it go. Theres no reason to continue on about nothing. — The King of Kings 21:10 July 18 '06

Both invalid blocks. I'm inclined to agree with Cyde just get rid of all "vandalism" sections particularly if they result in unwarranted blocks. He had no valid reason to block me. (→Netscott) 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's an invalid block, but you have to have a sense of humor about some things. Did you happen to notice the summary he gave for your block? Geez, lighten up. But I agree with Cyde, vandalism sections don't provide much. — The King of Kings 21:21 July 18 '06

Re:"Just look at Sean Black's RFA ... once you've been an admin for awhile you collect enough random enemies who will come out of the woodwork to oppose" I opposed and i would not call my self an enemy. We had barely intereacted. I did look at his record though. The fact is that whenever you run for an RfA you are seen by a new set of eyes and by people with a different set of criteria. Personally, i would not rerun for admin. Many who vote do not give great feed back and certainly it gives the trolls a great chance to cause havoc.

David D. (Talk)

20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Cyde was not implying that all of the opposes on that particular RfA are enemies, merely that that may be the case for some of the opposes. On the more general discussion here, admins are often chosen as the people who are capable of making the hard decisions. Whenever you make those decisions, there are always people on both sides of the argument who are likely to get upset with your choice. (See m:Wrong version, for example) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify i don't believe Cyde was accusing me of being an enemy. But the sentence makes it sound as if there are few legitimate opposes. i would like to think that many of those opposing were not his 'enemy'. I do agree with Cyde, that the RfA is flawed, and running the gauntlet may not even give one the feedback that is useful. Self reflection and discussion at pages like this are much more productive. And if one has really gone OTT then I am sure ArbCom will waste no time. Leave the desysopping to them.

David D. (Talk)

21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments, good and bad. Zeq himself has said I'm good at times, just that I act impulsively. Will (message me!) 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to use the new blocking system to range-block all of AOL?

Current system:

• Registered AOL users frequently get hit by autoblocks
• AOL anons frequently get hit by autoblocks
• AOL vandals rarely get hit by autoblocks

Blocking AOL with allow registered editors/allow registration:

• Registered AOL users never get hit by autoblocks
• AOL anons can never edit
• AOL vandals never get hit by autoblocks

Which do we want? --Carnildo 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to jump through all the whining that goes with blocking usernames. Blocking AOL ips when required is easier and has less opposition. Since we can now block each user specifically, I don't see the use of range blocks as preventive measures. --mboverload@ 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Range blocks just cause too much grief. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

The decision takes account of the fact that the editors in question are new to Wikipedia and cannot be expected to be fully conversant with our rules and culture.

The

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Low priority on this... but the

I was trying to install the Monobook-Suite and I did something wrong with the monobook.js of wikipedia in spanish monobook.js because now I'm not able to login at es.wikipedia.org...please help!!! --cybedu 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not saying that nobody here can help, but please know that administrators on en are not automatically administrators on other wiki projects. You might have better luck posting on es's version of AN, though leave your post here in case someone with multiple admin wanders by. Syrthiss 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to find an admin with multiple admin rights then.--cybedu 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On

Ah crap, I just noticed that there's a freakin' SVG version too and we should be using that one instead. Grrr.

chat

} 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't you redirect an image? Wouldn't that do the trick? ---J.S (t|c) 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't redirect Images, well.. you can, but you're not supposed to. — The King of Kings 03:45 July 19 '06