Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive395

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of Chetlover (talk · contribs) and deal with this person? There may be more happening here than ordinary vandalism so I came here rather than AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like straight-up vandalism to me, probably a sock, but AIV-worthy nonetheless if you ask me. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:23, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. And... this is kind of disturbing. seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially since that person is up to be a coordinator at the Films project: Four nominees, four positions, so he or she is bound to get one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of disturbing? It's a bit horiffic. Thinking about

WP:TOV. Bstone (talk

) 07:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I like the venue you chose to post that question. Good work ;) Equazcion •✗/C • 07:57, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

And join the Creamy Army! I'm too sleepy to deal with the army's members at the moment, but there are 11 total... seicer | talk | contribs 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Creamy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the threat, and will look into blocking the rest of his (obvious) "army" socks. The other "Creamy" members haven't really edited in quite a while, or edited only their userpages, so I'm just leaving those alone. seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent deletion of other "cabals" and the fact that my original MfD of the Creamy Army essentially predicted (correctly) that the paths of the members weren't likely to improve, I'd support deleting the Creamy Army page. — Scientizzle 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, truth be told, if their only active "member" is leaving a post like that on talk pages, I find it easy to support deleting the Creamy Army page as disruptive. Here's another of his posts, apparently an "in joke" among Creamy Armyites. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And listed. seicer | talk | contribs 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to go with this so I'll put it here for the admins to sort out. SPAs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] votestacking for Yllosubmarine. And then vandalizing her userpage. Come on, that's not nice. maclean 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined the unblock request from the attacking account and protected their talk page so they will go away. Blocked the other accounts as obvious sockpuppets created in order to harass (although in an unusual way, by supporting, but harassment all the same). Let's see if we catch anyone in the resulting autoblocks. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I suspect the puppetmaster to be Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs). ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin rollback the edits of the latest sock of banned user

Background details about this editor are available at the multiple checkusers (here and here) which revealed 150+ socks, and at this ANI ban discussion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted; protected for a week; Sock blocked indef; IPs blocked 72 hours ACB/AO. Since he's a community-banned user, please revert on sight:

WP:3RR does not apply to reverting banned users. ➨ REDVEЯS

paints a vulgar picture 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as usual. I realized that I could keep reverting him, but it got tiresome after a couple of times and I thought block+protection would be more effective. Lets see how long this keeps him away! Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Avraham#Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ? and the history of Talk:Sarah and related articles. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting here as I'm not 100% sure where it goes otherwise but, I was extremely sure that I created a talk page for the above article but, since then a "new" talk page was created. Please see my comment below from this "new" talk page:

"==Title== I'm not sure what is going on but, I created a talk page already for this article (or one extremely similarly named) suggesting a name change. Has the original article been deleted and recreated? I'm crossposting this to other places this time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"

Could someone please check in everyway possible to verify that I did or didn't do this.

Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

you did. It was deleted when the article was deleted. I restored the deleted edit and it seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. I can't see any longer :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • If it helps my original comment on the talk page was something akin to "I'm not sure whether this article is a hoax or someother type of spam/vandalism but, if it is legitimate I would suggest a change of name to Ukrain (cancer medicine)." Thanks in advance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrap my earlier comment about it disappearing forever. It's back in the page history now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yeah I just found the speedy delete notice on the creator's user talk page. It just freaked me out with it disappearing from contribution lists (including the bit on my user profile bit where I clicked on my contributions and it didn't show up. Is that pretty standard stuff? Normally, I wouldn't be that upset but, there is the whole audit trail thing and the fact that I was just trying to help. It just makes me feel "icky" that my contributions can just disappear like that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A deleted page, of any type, disappears from your watchlist (but are still listed on "view and edit watchlist") and all contributions you made disappear from your contributions list. Administrators can still see your deleted contributions (there's a link in your logs for us). Deleted contributions aren't really deleted, they're just hidden for most people. This is because what we delete is often times really nasty stuff - insults, libel, threats etc - and nobody needs to see them (and we don't want people to see the libellous ones!). Having some of your contributions deleted is never held against someone - most people have deleted contributions, some into the thousands. Deleted contributions, provided they're not libellous, of course, can usually be made available to you again temporarily if you need to see them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the info Redvers. As long as they still appear somewhere that administrators can see them I'm happy. I was just worried because if "God forbid" I was to be accused of anything on here I'd want to make sure the audit trail still existed somewhere to exonerate me (or if I had actually done wrong) than the audit trail could be used to illustrate the mistake and help me improve as an editor/user. Thanks to both you and Theresa. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a mixed bag here. IL!ke2BAn0nym0us (talk · contribs) is signing edits as ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs), while claiming that the latter has forgotten their password. But it doesn't look like the same sober editor at all -- some minor vandalism, a passel of AFDs, and some pretty intemperate comments on user talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not IL2BA. The intemperate comments sound like him but he fought long and hard for at least one of those articles this person AfD'ed. spryde | talk 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be User:W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 based on the edits and Spanish accent usage. I am going to file a RFCU. spryde | talk 12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, more recently,

talk · contribs), with a similar track record on AFD. I suspected as much given xer other sock, IHate2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk

12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Recent RFCU amended and bumped to the top. spryde | talk 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another new account, Pla$ticbag (talk · contribs) (created less than a day after NewAtThis was blocked), who's made a couple of hinky-looking AfD noms. Does anyone think that this looks like another sock? Deor (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Earlier today, IP 69.155.178.163 began vandalising the Barnfield article. Several users reverted him, and then 20wiki08 began inserting the same message. The IP then reverted it. I'm no expert on sockpuppetry, but it seems like the IP has created an account to continue adding the same type of message. FusionMix 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a couple of days and 20wiki08 (talk · contribs) shown the door. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Some one has posted using my IP Address ( which I have used to sign below here ) at a particular subject on 14:53, 20 March 2008. Please explain how this is possible when that IP Address is my home one and not shared with anyone else. I am really worried of any future misuse of my IP Address and hereby notify to protect from this suspicious hacking.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that you have a wireless connection?

_(1 == 2)^Until

14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not using any sort of wireless connections.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most IPs are dynamic. It is also possible that the IP in question belonged to someone else on March 20 but was reassigned to you in the mean time. This can happen with almost any IP at any time but is most common with dial-up, or with DLS or cable if you unplug or reset the modem or have a power failure. When you reconnect, you usually get a different IP than you had before the connection was dropped. Thatcher 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also be on a shared IP address. Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) give one IP address to many people, sometimes thousands of people on 1 IP address. Infact the entire country of Qatar comes through one IP address so it's very unlikely that you have been hacked for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The details which you have provided are very helpful.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing the IP or where it was posted, I'm only guessing ... but is the IP shown in history, or are you seeing it in a talk page where someone might have manually faked the IP in a signature? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I checkusered it. The IP made a vandal edit and was warned; this person got the warning today. Again, most likely explanation is that this was not your IP on March 20 but is your IP now. Don't worry about it. I hope you find some interesting topics to edit and have fun on the site. Thatcher 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When reverting vandalism today, I came upon this threat. User:Hihiyo9 threatens to kill all authors of the magazine Log with a chain saw. Though I have serious doubts about whether this user is serious, I don't want to take a chance, and have seen similar reports here before. Can anyone help in some way? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About the most you can do is block the account... and report it if you choose to do so. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. :) Marked as resolved. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

This editor knows better. these personal attacks are not welcome. If need be, I consent to checkuser also (but no revelation of actual IPs/markets please. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary in this case, although the comments are ill-advised as others have told Lawrence already.

^T

16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for talking to him. I think it would be best if I disengage lawerence. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the non-heads up on this thread. My only point was that the MFD nomination itself is disruptive (it is, obviously) and that Nonvocalscream is an obvious reincarnation of some user, and we are unable to judge who--a sockpuppet. That's it. Stating truth is not a personal attack, but I'm done.

Calling an assumption of bad faith "truth" does not make it acceptable. Please comment on the merit of the deletion request, instead of making ad hominem comments on the nominator.

t

16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We label actions good faith and bad faith all the time. I've never heard such a thing called a personal attack before, ever.

t/e

16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

t

16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken.

t/e

16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

63.133.249.1

Resolved

 – blocked

Can we block 63.133.249.1 ? The whole edit history for the address is nothing but vandalism, and right now 63.133.249.1 happens to have turned the hose on the featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccreitz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for a short time. Next time, you can report vandalism
  here. Black Kite
  18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Resolved

 – Canvassing occurred, block not warranted at this time

Does this count as canvassing? BoL (Talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:30, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a SPA too. Will let others opinion. BoL (Talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Over 50 invitations by a new account is not what I would call a

limited posting. Gwen Gale (talk

) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I left her a warning. Let's see what happens. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:36, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

← On second thought, this seems to be a

How about deleting the page, warning the user and then explaining him how to do it correctly so he can carry on with the project? I wouldn't want to break a research project on wikipedia because of, well, procedure --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The user describes herself on the user page: I'm Katherine Panciera, a Ph.D. student at the University of Minnesota... so I don't think this is blockable as a role account. Don't bite :) She likely didn't have a clue what she was doing would be thought of as untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What would be the correct way? There's no "right way" that I'm aware of, to advertise a research project to Wikipedians, through Wikipedia. User talk pages? Village pump? None of those are supposed to be used for canvassing or advertising an outside project. This is a single-purpose account and needs to go. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:58, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

correct way to canvass, posting on wikiprojects and related topic pages --Enric Naval (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-ec: This user isn't here to improve the encyclopedia at all, but rather to study its participants. That's not proper use of an account. It's the definition of a role account, and should be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:00, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

In the strict definition of the word (see the lede of the article "canvassing"), KP's contributions do qualify as "canvassing". In the spirit of the Wikipedia guideline, however, which I would think is to prevent inappropriately influencing internal discussions by notifying a large number of individuals in a target audience, I do not think that KP's contributions qualify as "canvassing", largely because KP's message is not a solicitation to participate in an internal discussion.

Furthermore, it is not strictly true, as was mentioned on KP's talk page, that, "Users aren't permitted to use Wikipedia as a forum to attain participants in events outside Wikipedia, or even within Wikipedia". Indeed, often messages are left for external events, such as Meetups and Wikimania notifications. Furthermore, it is not strictly true that, "Users' talk pages are generally only to be used for collaboration on the encyclopedia". Indeed, many users chat on talk pages.

I would also hope that Wikipedians would approach this situation with a bit more care. It is a great opportunity to have Ph.D. students interested in researching the social dynamics of Wikipedia, and utilisting the talk pages of interested editors (or potentially interested editors) seems like a sensible and appropriate use of the talk pages. Could we please take this a bit more slowly, and with a bit more discussion? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS has some guidelines and over 50 invitations by a new account is not a limited posting. She can't canvass like this but I'd wait for her reply and at least ask if she would like to keep the account for editing articles first. If she plans on using the account only for her study, I wouldn't think the account should stay. Gwen Gale (talk

) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that the user should probably be kindly asked to stop, and that is it. There is nothing all that disruptive with it; she is a new user and unaccostomed to the social mores of Wikipedia's community. Heck, if we don't scare her away, her expertise and access to references may be valuable towards actually IMPROVING some Wikipedia articles. Lets not bite every newbie that has good intentions, instead lets work to get more people involved in improving articles, while not scaring away the new users be appearing to be a closed clique! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Perhaps someone can point her to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikidemia? (Maybe they can help her find a better way to conduct her studies). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a single-purpose account. That much seems clear. I don't consider her a newbie per se, as she doesn't seem interested in editing articles. She's just here to do a study. I'd block it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Why are you interested in blocking the account of an academic whose studies and expertise could potentially improve Wikipedia, whether directly (by editing articles) or indirectly (by conducting a study on internal dynamics)? --Iamunknown 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block until I'd asked her if she planned on editing articles too, no need to bite, I don't think she meant to disrupt anything. Gwen Gale (talk)

(E/C) That could be the case, but I don't see a reason that we need to rush to a block without hearing her point of view. (Unless she resumes mass posting, there's no real threat of disruption). There's no real reason to suspect that she couldn't have some valuable contributions to offer. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll let someone else answer that. But I'll also just say in the meantime, in answer to your Wikimania comparison, advertisements of a paid study on Wikipedians and advertisements about a Wikipedia-run meetup are not even in the same ballpark. This run of advertisements was pure spam. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:20, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she spammed (likely inadvertantly), but I'd wait for a reply from her. I wouldn't want to sour someone on getting interested in editing articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bwah! This is a

Group Lens is an academic research group, not some company sending out spam (although you could reasonably view her earlier actions that way, although I'd be inclined to give her some slack as a newbie not knowing the rules). Now, if she states that she's intending to use this account solely for research, then there might be an issue here. But given that she hasn't had a chance to respond, I can't see what the harm is in waiting before we

bite. --Bfigura ^(talk

) 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Not a company, a research lab at a university. Not a role account, an individual. She likely didn't know what she was doing and will likely not disrupt after the warning she's been given. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes five comments you've made to that effect Equazcion. I disagree that she should be blocked for having done something we have no evidence she knew was wrong, having been warned for it, and having stopped what she was asked to stop. This should really be referred to Jimbo and/or the Office though. --John (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's the sixth. Read the page I linked to that defines role accounts. Just because it's not a company doesn't mean it's not a role account. The account was created for the express purpose of recruiting study subjects. It should, again, be blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Offering money in exchange for participation! Certainly no student can offer that.

11

05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, academic studies are typically paid. (See this list for some examples). And apologies if I misread sarcasm. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep and they likely got the gift certificates as a contribution from Amazon in some academic deal or something. If she'd already been blocked for spamming it would be no big deal but since she's not carrying on with it, I'd still wait and ask what she thinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see absolutely nothing wrong with what that user is doing. We should welcome and help academics who are interested in our project, not chase them away with arbitrary ruleslawyering. Equzcion, you are being the disruptive element here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive. I'm being discussive. I just love how that "disruptive" word gets thrown around at any vocal minority. See

my essay on it. When lots of people disagree with you, you need to respond a lot more than normal. Kindly don't tell me I'm being disruptive unless I'm doing something more than discussing and replying to those who respond to me. Equazcion •✗/C •

06:09, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd say she was a bit unprofessional in firing off the invitations like that, they should have done a bit of research and contacted the foundation, which might have welcomed what they had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The foundation could've found a way to help and acquire study subjects, if they approved of the study. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:18, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could suggest she do that? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, no one's stopping you. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:21, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that you're not being disruptive. Reasonable people can disagree, after all :) (And the foundation does sound like the best way to go. Good idea Gwen). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That was improperly curt of me. Sorry. I'm a little pissed at a couple comments here still. Yes I think that is a good idea, although I don't know exactly how to contact the foundation, and that info should probably be included in the message to the user. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I think I understood your mood. Meanwhile I left her a message with contact info. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. I've tried to speedy close it, but I don't think it will stick. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She should clearly be directed to a research project here at Wikipedia. We should not be blocking people like this and deleting their research pages, but offering assistance as long as they are not being excessively disruptive, which I think is definitely true in this case.--Filll (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedy closed it,

WP:BOLD. The only worry I ever saw here was a flurry of userpage messages from a new user. A look at her talk page will confirm she's going to get whatever help she needs. I see no meaningful risk of disruption to the project. Gwen Gale (talk

) 12:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I've posted to this editor's Talk page inquiring if she has received IRB approval to perform this study. I find it very hard to believe any IRB would approve a study involving human subjects when the method of recruiting participants violates one of our policies. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that leaving messages inquiring if editors want to participate in a study violates no policies... --Iamunknown 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is if it's done excessively. HalfShadow (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about the strict definition of the word "canvassing", yes; if we are talking about the surreal Wikipedia guideline at

WP:CANVASS, then no. --Iamunknown

00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please restore this, to my userspace if need be. I want to view it, it is linked from this discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not much to see, mate. I can email you the last version's source if you like. Incidentally, am I alone in noticing a strong correlation between massively over-elaborate signatures and MySpacery? Guy (Help!) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You're not alone - I remember a brief period in... January? .. when there were actually "signature shops" - at least those are gone now. --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy and Random, I'll take your word for it. I just wanted to see what folks were talking about, redlinks made it difficult. But if its a sig book, I don't need to see it. Thanks and regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a list of "cabal" pages that have since been deleted. Guy's comment was, I expect, based on the fact that the table included the signature (rather than just the name) of the person who created the cabal, and the signatures themselves were in various fonts and colors, and in one case had several boxes around it. Do you still want it? --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It's fallout from April 1.

I just saw something really weird (6:52pm GMT). When I accessed Stream of Passion, in the place where it normally reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" it read "From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature...". I alerted a friend of mine via ICQ and he saw it too. Shortly afterwards (7:08pm), the spook had totally disappeared.

This does not seem the only occasion, for a web search brought up this page in the Google cache and 68 more hits. So I really wasn't hallucinating.

April fool's joke? Has Wikipedia been hacked? Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the taglines that ended up being shown on april fools day, but the tagline page hasn't been edited since 12:35 on April 1. I can only assume it was some type of cache issue. --Onorem♠Dil 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet more reasons why dicking around with MediaWiki on April Fool's Day is a very bad idea. Thatcher 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! Now I'm relieved. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more data on this

CBM · talk

) 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note that one of those with the "lavendar passageway" stupidity is a
  WP:BLP. I sincerely hope this will never happen again. Guy (Help!
  ) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I put this article up for semi-protection earlier today after IP edit warring, and now users Sirblew and Havoc1310, not affected by the semi, are continuing the edit war. Are a couple days of full-protect in order? FusionMix 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe - for the time being, I've just warned

talk

) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I thought I already dropped Sirblew a 3RR note, but I may have forgotten to. Anyway, if I see any more edit warring, I'll drop the diff here. FusionMix 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• As one of the other major editors of that article, I would prefer not to see full protection of that article as I am sick and tired of having spent a week adding little constructive to the article and just reverting what I consider vandalism - an unsourced POV section being added in spite of numerous warnings and in total ignorance of several talk page notices about what the problem is. Full protection would prevent anything constructive being done to the article, and I want to start really working on it because let's face it we badly need to - it's in an atrocious state. I don't claim my opinion matters, but are there grounds for limiting this user's capacity to edit the article given that is where the problem is? I also really hope I'm not considered in breach of 3RR for my numerous reversions of the section - I know I've reverted a lot in the last few days and I apologise sincerely if I have breached policy in so doing.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I might also have caused some trouble by leaving the whole Scrin thing when I moved the criticisms to the reception area. I probably shouldn't have left that intact. FusionMix 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That was what caused Havoc's involvement I believe, I didn't actually check the link else I'd have removed it sooner (I certainly removed it enough recently to be sure) but it's gone now and nobody has made any claim to it being a valid link (including SirBlew, who has yet to offer a single edit summary besides "you're working for EA and suppressing negative criticism" (that's a paraphrase). Tonight I will probably add a good dozen references to the reception section, thus making it complete. See the talk page for it in a few minutes for my ideas, but don't worry too much about having left that in a bit too long.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are two editors who are persistently edit warring without discussing anything on the talk pages, while everybody else is working together, then we can certainly deal with those editors rather than protecting the entire article. Let's see what happens now that SirBlew has been warned, though.

talk

) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The headline says it all, really - apart from one edit in March, he's been focusing on Privatemusings' contributions - issuing a warning for a vandalism reversion that supposedly "technically" violates PM's probation, making an unhelpful comment on the MFD of PM's podcast... Does anyone really believe this is a new user? Considering that PM's previous ban was for using undisclosed alternate accounts for project/policy areas, it's particularly troubling that someone is using one to go after him. --Random832 (contribs) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Trolling single purpose account, just what we need least. I've blocked it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP user 75.75.185.176 has been consistently reverting non-NPOV information back onto the Jimmy Rollins page. It has now been reverted five times and the user has been warned via his talk page. Other incidents from the past few months have also been documented there, including his vandalism of the wiki of a player who plays for a main rival of Rollins' team. Killervogel5 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment to the talk page and removed a ref (the anon had a valid point on that, a "statement of fact" should not be used in a ref tag - a reliable source is needed). But I agree that many of the other edits by the anon were pushing a POV as well as removing some valid wiki-links to related articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

-- Naerii 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this him?

If it is, someone should delete all the empty subpages.

^T

20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Naerii 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because it really is very unlikely that he's Awbrey, considering the massive difference in writing style and MO. "Wikipedia accuses me of being hate-filled," for example, not something Awbrey would say. I don't doubt that it's a sock of someone though. -- Naerii 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked. -- Naerii 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably some random troll. Like someone said in response to it on the page, the text itself looked like it was automatically generated. --Random832 (contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Lame joke. --

barneca (talk

) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rory, I don't know you, so I don't know if:

1. You're in on the joke and continuing it here, or
2. You don't get it that Scarian et al have been stringing you along on an extended April Fool's joke.

If it's (1), then please keep April Fool's jokes confined to April 1st. If it's (2), then your leg is being pulled, Scarian is not PhilKnight, and he didn't block Wiki alf, and a bit of a "tsk tsk" on Scarian for continuing to pull your leg for so long. --

barneca (talk

) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, per this edit I see it's all a joke. I don't know what time zone you're in, but April 1st ended for the rest of us about 3 days ago. Thank you for wasting 5 minutes of my time; I thought I was helping a newbie. --

barneca (talk

) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask another admin or three to look at

Is this guy banned, or just blocked? Because if he's banned then you shouldn't have an issue removing his edits. (Which BTW he's reinserted). --Haemo (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Ego is most indubitably banned and not just blocked (see User:Billy Ego for a listing of ArbCom case, declined appeals, etc). I suppose I just wanted a sanity check before I handle this, since I have taken issue with his edits in addition to identifying him as a sock of a banned user. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead and block him. You're fully within your rights to revert edits by a banned user without consequence or fear of being "involved". You can't have a content dispute with a persona non grata. --Haemo (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Luckily I found this. I am not a banned user. It appears to me that MastCell has an issue with the content I added so is claiming I am a sockpuppet in order to eliminate the edits. Smockroker (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An

WP:SPA, but I don't think they've done anything actionable unless they are a Billy Ego sock, or proxying for him. Per this

checkuser request (all nine of them!), it appears you are the Billy Ego expert. Rather than have other admins wade thru Billy Ego's editing style to come to their own conclusion, I wonder if a better question is: can you get consensus here that in spite of the fact that you have reverted this editor a few times, do we trust you to recognize and block a Billy Ego sock when you see it? My ¡vote! is "yes" to that question. Shame on me in advance if this violates the Wikipedia Way, but as long as this is done here in the open, that seems the best question to ask.

Or just ask Guy to just

barneca (talk

) 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be really unethical. It's clear that he doesn't like the content added to the article. It appears to me that he's making this claim of being banned user in order to own the article. I imagine he would continue to use this claim throughout the future when people add material which he finds objectionable. It's very convienient to claim that it is a banned user using a different name. Smockroker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, that comment about racism was not mine. It was someone else's that I mistakenly put back in when I undid the large removal of my additions. A few other things in Mastcells comments are not quite true, as well. Smockroker (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That part is true: [10], adding to my point that the user hasn't done anything blockable yet unless they are Billy Ego. --

barneca (talk

) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No harm, no foul. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been this report added to SSP this evening, despite none of the accounts (not the master, nor the alleged puppets) ever having made an edit. [11]. Spooky. Is there an agenda, or an experiment at work here? Who knows. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. People notice multiple accounts being created and report them, even though the accounts haven't been used. I closed the SSP report without action since none of the accounts have been used at all, much less abusively. No harm, no foul. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all good, no harm anywhere. But perhaps given the backlog at SSP discussed here [12] it might be helpful if experienced editors didn't throw unnecessary reports onto the pile. If I may say so as a non-admin. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning behind it, though: a lot of the time, socks around here tend to be used inappropriately, but if they haven't actually done anything, much less anything wrong... HalfShadow (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the userpages, which were tagged with "abusive sockpuppetry" templates. Even with the likelihood that they are the same person, and that this didn't really fall into a CSD, there's no need to label somebody "abusive" when no abuse has occurred. It could simply be somebody trying to get their username right. I'd also suggest blanking the talk pages (they're a bit

WP:BITEy if it truly is a new user), but will leave that to somebody else's discretion. - auburnpilot talk

01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Non-notable HalfShadow (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are articles like

In it's current state, I wouldn't think so. The article literally just says 'This guy was a police officer. Oh, and he died.' But, of course, I'm not am admin, so... HalfShadow (talk)

Looks non-notable to me and a good candidate for deletion. Look here for a list of similar non-notable articles created by the same user in the last few days 24 hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, I have a question and I'm not sure where else to post this, but when I got to the computer today, I had three new messages, all which were very personal (diff). I have no clue who this guy is or if he is the same person all three times, but it's sort of freaking me out. I know this doesn't warrant a checkuser, but could you give me advice? In addition, several ip's have edited my userpage today, which is very unusual. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Main thing I would suggest would be to run some anti-virus software on your computer to make sure you don't have any trojans installed - aside from that, you may want to try to cut down the information you've got on your userpage (for example, it's not entirely necessary to have your email publicly listed, especially since

a/c

) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Someone seems to have transcluded your User and User Talk pages in the Sandbox here. The edits to your talk page were by people playing around in the Sandbox at the time. I wouldn't worry about it. Deor (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh that must be it! Thank you Deor and Hersfold for looking in on this, you saved me a lot of stress. -- penubag  (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, by now it should be common knowledge that there is a Tor node user playing a childish "there are no incidents to report at this time, d'uh!" game on this board, however this ridiculous trend of vandalism exposed a strange tendency by User:KrimpBot. The thing is that the bot has been removing all of the Tor tags in these addresses and is leaving this edit summary "Untagging xx.xx.xxx.xxx as no longer an open Tor node" (see here) when this vandal has made evident that said claim is inaccurate, is there a particular bug in the system or is this just mistake in the bot's code? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes tor nodes go on and off. If they are off when the bot checks the list it apparently unblocks them. Put together a list of examples and post it to the bot's talk page so the operator can adjust the bot's method of determining when nodes are no longer open. Thatcher 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will leave Krimpet a note on his talk page to notify him of this thread, finding examples shouldn't be hard, just today this particular vandal revealed three, the first example and these two. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

There is a request which seems malicious at User talk:Froda. Caution, this is NSFW. I think this might have some spyware or something of the like. Anyone want to handle it? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Just excessive HTML coding. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is happening occasionally. I've just deleted and protected quite a few. These people are just doing it to be disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I jumped the gun a bit, but better safe than sorry when dealing with something like this. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:AzaToth for 24 hours for vandalizing two pages in the MediaWiki namespace. He changed the 'Go' and 'Search' buttons (in the sidebar) to read 'Wacky Search' and 'I'm Feeling lucky', respectively. This is simply unacceptable behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. Check your calendar, it's April Fools' Day. You blocked him without any warning. Maxim_(talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit sad that admins need to be warned not to vandalise the MediaWiki space. -- Naerii

• Something per
  t/e
  22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock. A simple "please don't do it again" would suffice, as I see no indication AzaToth would have continued if asked to stop. - auburnpilot talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, it's April Fools'. Lighten up. Did fiddling with the search box cause real harm? I don't think so. What MZMcBride should have done is to tell AzaToth to stop and he'll stop, he's sensible enough to be chosen an admin, I don't see why he wouldn't stop. Maxim_(talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd be okay if it actually was funny, but these crap attempts at being humorous are making my head hurt. And of course they go against the tradition of April Fool's anyway, where the point is to trick people into believing something false - not to go around endlessly crapspamming gibberish and memes from ten years ago (which seems to be the Wikipedian approach to humour). -- Naerii 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, admins shouldn't need warning about vandalizing MediaWiki space. This needs to stop.

talk

) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that this is an actual block and not a joke. Please unblock.

I'm all for April Fools not going into mediawiki space, but c'mon... a block? - Philippe 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are these edits in his contributions? I'm not seeing them.[13]

They're in his deleted contributions. —Animum (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply originally intended for my talk page) While I have little tolerance for those who joke around in the MediaWiki: namespace (I learned my lesson in mid-September), I agree with the people who commented before me:

• 1) Blocks are preventative, not punitive; I can't imagine that he would continue to joke after being asked to stop.
• 2) It was one edit.

—Animum (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They were deleted, Lawrence. Is it smart to delete MediaWiki: pages? I really don't think so... Maxim_(talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, overkill? Why weren't they just rv'd?

t/e

22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They get filled in automatically by the software if they don't exist, and these ones are currently set to the defaults anyway. The edits are here and here, for the curious. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Blocking admins in good standing for a couple of April Fools' jokes is unnecessary and just plain over the top. While editing MediaWiki namespace for fun is both (1) stupid and (2) dangerous, I don't think blocking is warranted unless somebody goes on a spree and ignores a succession of polite messages, friendly nudges, and stern warnings. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked; I don't expect Aza is going to pull that stunt again. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock is probably fine, but when will admins realize that Wikipedia isn't their private playground?.

talk

) 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unblocking, a friendly note on his talkpage would have been far more appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think screwing around with mediawiki space is lame. Jokes, yes, fine, but screwing with the interface is going to confuse people. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I don't think anyone could accuse me of lacking a sense of humour, but we have over 1,000 admins - if every one decides to perpetrate some joke in the interface then the whole thing will break. Next year, I suggest some firm guidance up front as to the kind of things not to do, and if people then do
  stuff beans up their noses then we should take a very dim view of it. In all seriousness, it really isn't a good idea at all. Warning? Pah. we shouldn't have to warn people not to screw around with the interface. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved, no need for any wiki-drama to un-fold. Now back to editing. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the unblock, he shouldn't be feeling "lucky" anymore... - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone delete all those April Fools' pages now that it's over? I moved the rupture in spacetime to is not exist because is not exist. SOmeone help delete these and close that Blocking policy deletion as speedy keep? Thanks. ~

Hi. Ok thanks. Now what is

U

) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks of

Random832

By the same virtue of the unblock of AzaToth (talk · contribs), I have unblocked Scientizzle and Random832 (who were blocked well after they each made one joke edit). I believe that brings the total to 7 admins who have been blocked today over April Fools jokes, so I hope we've learned our lesson. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

talk · contribs) also got blocked... Maxim_(talk)

23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the April Fools Seven are

User:Kwsn, User:AzaToth, and User:Omegatron. - auburnpilot talk

23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To the

stocks with the lot of 'em. Second offense for User:Scientizzle. Ronnotel (talk

) 03:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I always knew those seven were bad news... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:55, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians always find ways to create strife when there is none. MZMcBride, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Sean William @ 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that comment excessively harsh. The seven blocks were made by three different admins, not only MZMcBride. Quite a few other admins have expressed what seems to be agreement with the spirit of the blocks, which is that edits to MediaWiki: pages cross the line of acceptable humor. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think dividing it up by namespace is productive. Someone put a new messages notice on the top of this noticeboard, does that mean that "edits to Wikipedia: pages cross the line of acceptable humor."? What if Viridae's edit to

Template:Watchlist-notice? And on the other hand, the text of the delete tab is not visible to ordinary readers at all, and the effects of my own edit to Mediawiki:Ipboptions is only visible to non-admins on block logs - which aren't really something ordinary readers are going to spend time looking at. --Random832 (contribs

) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ii seems that Sean is the one creating drama here. I think that blocks prevented some other admins from doing similar things, so they were preventative, and I also think that admins don't need to be warned not to do such things. —AlexSm 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were to block an edit warrior far after he had committed the offense, would the block still be preventative because other edit warriors would be dissuaded? Any block of such kind would be swiftly shot down by the community for being punitive. Why wasn't the same action done in this case? In addition, when it comes to tinkering with the MediaWiki namespace, there is no precedent whatsoever, especially during April Fools' Day. (I recall that Cyde was blocked in 2006 by Essjay for a long string of MediaWiki incidents, but the difference here was that he was warned by a lot of people.) One of the people who blocked administrators yesterday himself took part in some AFD madness a while back, and nobody seemed to care. [14] Sean William @ 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How unfortunate that this has caused so much strife. As one of the April Fools Seven, I won't pretend I didn't do anything worth criticism (though I feel my single, self-reverted-in-under-a-minute, non-offensive edit was hardly worth a block). Some of the April Fools shenanigans were certainly of questionable taste, but the vast majority of the stuff I witnessed (and participated) was simply not meant to be disruptive in a damaging sense. Of course, not everyone celebrates the nonsensical pseudo-holiday, humor often does not translate well online, and one's "sense of humor" is a wildly variable and context-dependent construct in which two distinct individuals may never share a laugh...but I've seen a few good users, on both sides of this dispute, get very upset (some to the point of leaving) over this sequence of events.

I ask that those who may be branded as troublemakers (like me, I guess), please recognize that your joking around may have legitimately annoyed or offended your fellow editors whom you would not normally actively wish to antagonize. Branding these antagonized editors as killjoys almost certainly does not help. (Who gains a sense of humor when told that they're lacking one?) I apologize to anyone who found my contributions disruptive enough to affect their willingness or desire to work on this project; such was not my intent.

I also ask that those on the other side please be somewhat lenient: this is a volunteer project in which a dose of levity can have a profoundly positive impact in the willingness of editors to donate their time and efforts. There is a long (sometimes ignoble) history of April 1 fun, here and across the internet. Rather than think of April 1 as a day on which people disruptively think the rules don't or shouldn't apply (as some have expressed, with irritation), the day can serve as a release valve for curiosity, build collegiality, and provide an ingredient to the enjoyment of many editors. That it is centralized on one day in particular has the built-in advantage of possibly leaving 364 other days untouched by some mischief and a greater likelihood of such mischief being more readily accepted by readers worldwide than on any other day.

In conclusion, some of what was done should not have occurred. Some of the responses probably made things worse. I think April Fools nonsense has some benefits, but more judicious application of any such frivolity would benefit all. I hope that those soured from recent events can overcome this and be welcomed by everyone. — Scientizzle 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The April Fools' Nine?

The following edits to the Mediawiki space on April Fools Day did not earn blocks:

• by Krimpet to Ipbreason-dropdown
• By Nihiltres to Blockip

The edit by Nihiltres is of particular interest because it was in approximately the same timeframe (ten minutes apart), and was of similar nature (edit to 'button' text seen only by admins) to Kwsn's edit to Mediawiki:Delete. --Random832 (contribs) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet if blocks and/or desysoppings were applied to all nine of these individuals, April Fools' Day 2009 would be comparatively calm, perhaps approaching the kind of atmosphere that is appropriate for an encyclopedia project. Everyking (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the rules changed? I thought blocking was meant to be preventative, not punitive. Am I in the right place? This is Wikipedia, right? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally its fools day, really it should be the likes of we non admins like SPUI, Everyking, Anticipated lover, The and myself who should rule, but staying serious, the best practical jokes are always serious, such as the vote for Jimboship. Thanks,

SqueakBox

01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Come one Everyking, even respected media organisations like BBC new and New Scientist have April fools pranks. Its a reflection on the nature of wikipedia that people are so intolerant of harmless wording cchanges for one very obvious day of the year. Viridae^Talk 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Replying to the "preventative not punishment" comment, I will point out that the only practical way to prevent AF vandalism next year is to deal with it severely this year. That is prevention. Likewise, blocking every admin who mucks around with Mediawiki without warning with an expiry of the end of the day is also preventative, in that it prevents other admins from getting from doing the same thing. Warn once, warn twice, warn three times then block the fourth time isn't really appropriate under these particular circumstances as that would entitle every admin feeling prankish to three pranks before blocking, and would encourage every admin who didn't prank this year because they were afraid of retaliation to try at least one or two tricks next year. (Mind you, I'm not endorsing desysopping, but I think AF pranks should be kept to project space and out of main space.) And Viridae, BBC and NewScientist can get away with AF pranks because no doubts their accuracy the other 364 days. We're in a different position. Thatcher 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be used in the sense of prevention that you are describing. We block vandal A for vandalism to prevent further disruption to the project, not to dissuade vandal B from considering further vandalism. These are not like mandatory jail sentences or the death penalty, which supposedly dissuade others from committing similar crimes (and receiving similar punishments). If there is no reason to believe somebody will continue a certain behavior if asked to stop, a block is meaningless and against policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks prevent the users in question from continuing their spree; if they agree to stop then lifting the block early is appropriate. It isn't necessary to warn admins not to muck around with MediaWiki pages, and immediate blocks for such edits are perfectly within policy. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, these arguments are a load of nonsense. And I say, frankly, the Emperor is not wearing any clothes here. So someone tell Jimbo.--Filll (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

endorse this summary. --Random832 (contribs) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented on this issue a couple of days ago

• Note the thread below that the April Fools' MediaWiki text is still (3 days later) showing up for some readers due to cache issues, and has been captured in google's cached versions of some articles. Yet another good reason to keep AF pranks out of main space. Now tell me; only admins can edit MediaWiki. How exactly should AF pranks be dealt with? Thatcher 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding my two cents: regardless of what day it is, instantaneously blocking an administrator over one questionable edit without warning shouldn't be done at all, regardless of what day it is. Remember that Wikipedia is run on the foundations of

Do you (or RyRy5 or Friday) have the link to the reversion that sparked the rollback being taken away? Metros (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

H₂O

) 02:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the reason, but is there a diff for the revert he used rollback on? Metros (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on

H₂O

) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin opinion - I see nothing wrong with Keilana's decision here, I would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I agree with Jossi that he needs to wait several months before re-applying, but no big deal -

Tan | 39

02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's not adminship. I'd say 30 days of problem free editing as a rough guide. It seems like overenthusiasm rather than malintent created the circumstances for removal. I'd also agree with DHMO below. Orderinchaos 10:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked a bit further at the edit he reverted, it was sad to see no apology, not even a note, to the user he reverted. I would suggest that apologising for his mistake would be the first (but not the last) step that RyRy5 should take.