Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Opinions/advice please

Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, for a bit now and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected.

collapsed as we seem to be making progress.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
During the recent RfC on the issue Jimmy Wales stated something to the effect that Using administrator tools or participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. It was stated with other ideas as well but this one in particular, I feel, should be backed up in actual policy or otherwise clarified. 1. Is this a policy if Jimmy simply states it is, if so do we have a policy that confirms that? 2. Wouldn't other policies on admin behaviours simply trump this? That is, theoretically, there may be some example of an admin being paid by the foundation or some other "weird" example so just like most other issues we look if an admin is actually doing something wrong verses something we morally find objectionable? 3. Is there a better way to phrase this or should it just be removed altogether? Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 1. We would have a policy which confirms that if an editor didn't hadn't removed it.[1] 2. Every rule can be ignored if it aids the project. We don't need to make a separate IAR clause in every policy. 3. The wording you have above seems succinct and clear. 4. There is a concern that editors who may have engaged in paid editing are editing the policy without disclosing their conflict of interest. 5. Only a few cases of cases clear paid editing have come to light. If anyone knows of administrative actions that have been made in the past, or AN/ANI threads about them, that information would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with Will that it would be good to add the sentence, to remove doubt. I think from various discussions at the time the last instance of paid editing became prominent, it was clear that this is policy with extremely strong support from the community. If I were being supported by a foundation, to exercise admin functions in a neutral manner, I would presumably ask for a community OK here first, to make sure the project had their support. I think any prudent admin would, and it needn't be written down. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid Will is also an interested party and it may be helpful for them to step back a bit so we get some uninvolved opinions. Also that page is not a proposed policy but a summation of current status quo. DGG, I sort of agree but feel we do need to be more clear. Based on your comments it seems: Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden as evidenced by ___(what wording here is accurate?)___; any Wikipedia sanctioned use of admin tools for compensation should seek community approval at __(WP:AN?)___. Does this seem accurate and can you help fill in the blanks? Personally I'm not terribly bothered if it's policy or not but if it is we should be able to explain why it is. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) If you really need "evidence" then just cite Jimbo's statement. Though he's renounced the use of the block button, there are other admins who would do it for him.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Again, your opinion is painfully clear, if I had wanted to hear it yet again I could have simply posted on the talkpage; please take this opportunity to allow others who are not involved to offer some constructive help. If we insert Wales' statement then we also inject dissenting opinions from that same statement section dragging the whole spirit of it away. Let's not degrade progress shall we? Perhaps there is some actual policy that states anything Wales states as policy is such, perhaps there is no such thing. No reason to suppress other views on the matter, right? -- Banjeboi 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I'm eager to get constructive help on this matter. The editing of the policy page itself has involved lots of reverting and not much consensus. If the slow-speed edit war continues the matter will have to go to dispute resolution. This is obivously somewhat hypothetical pending someone getting caught taking pay for adminsitrative tasks or editing policy articles. But a clear statement from Wales, supported by admins, is strong evidence of a policy. I'll repeat my request above: if anyone has knowledge of any blocks, desysopings, or even just AN/ANI threads concerning actual instances of paid editing, that would help.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Again that "clear" statement is only cleer against advocacy which is always prohibited - paid or not - and admins disagreed with Wales on aspects of the statement as well. Hence the request for uninvolved folks to offer opinions and advice, please vector your comments to the talkpage so others may offer some insight. If you seek past ANI/AN threads, etc then you can utilize the search function for those. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that there is a "slow-speed edit war" shows that there is no consensus on the matter. Some Wikipedians believe that editting for pay, no matter what the terms, should be grounds for banning without exception. Others, like me, believe that there are conditions where being paid to edit are permissible. I suggest that no policy be enforced until the dust has settled -- unless you enjoy making people angry for no good reason. -- llywrch (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There are only a few editors active on that page, so I think the lack of consensus reflects the views of those individuals more than the community. There is a paradox here. Benjiboi is saying that there is no policy in this because it's never been enforced, and Llywrch is suggesting that we make no enforcement because there is no policy.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No, what I was saying is that because there is no consensus on the matter, the policy page will remain unstable. As for policy on the matter, there's nothing keeping anyone from acting on what they believe is abusive editting -- but speaking for myself I would recommend to anyone acting on this matter to proceed carefully because of the inevitable blow-back. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) First of all, you have derailed this thread from getting a focussed answer. Second, you are misrepresenting what I'm stating, perhaps not on purpose. My concern is that Wales stated a paragraph of things and called it policy in an RfC, many folks disagreed with him and noted it was likely unenforcible and unneeded. My request was how do we accurately represent this with due weight. There seems to be less of a willingness to declare Wales' decrees as policy yet I see little to confirm how this can be presented. The RfC itself presented a split view of a divided community likely because editors such as yourself keep conflating paid editing as COI and advocacy when it clearly is not that simple. If you're unwilling to step back enough to allow uninvolved admins to comment in an area they are likely to be able to offer an opinion it's likely you'll drown out healthy discussion. -- Banjeboi 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) This thread does not belong to any of us. Shall we both step back? We're both involved editors. There are concerns about "ownership" of the policy page, and there is also a consensus of involved editors that folks who are editing the page should disclose their paid editing, if any. We may need to address those issues before we can succeed in reaching consensus on the policy itself.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I just wanted to note that somewhat recently there was an incident at the COI noticeboard regarding a paid editor, Gkerkvliet. See here for the original noticeboard report. The article was later deleted in a snowball discussion, and in that discussion the editor admitted to being paid. DGG stated in that discussion: I agree with you that if the content meets the standard, the manner of editing is irrelevant. I suppose under the principles of free enterprise that the paid editors who judge rightly will be the ones that prosper. But perhaps that's unfair since it is true that our judgements are not all that predictable or consistent. Other administrators took part in that deletion discussion, but nobody took offense at the fact that the editor was paid to edit the article, including non-administrators in the discussion. Personally I don't really see the harm in being paid to edit an article if the contributions are okay, and especially if the editor admits that they are paid to edit an article. -- Atamachat 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Returning to the point of Benjiboi's original question, I believe he meant to ask a question more in the form of "If Jimmy Wales makes a pronouncement on policy, is it policy?" And the answer to that is it depends. While his statements have a lot more weight than any other single Wikipedian, if enough Wikipedians object, it is not policy. (And IMHO, in this case, enough Wikipedians have objected so while it is a weighty opinion in itself his statement is not policy.) Policy pages, please remember, are simply a description of what policy is, not the policy itself. Consensus defines policy at all times -- even if we consent to the policy with silence or inactivity. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you! That's kind of what I was looking for but not finding. As a follow-up do you think this bears mentioning on the summary-of-existing-practices page and if so what might be a NPOV of presenting this? -- Banjeboi 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Well speaking for myself, I would mention it. My preference would be either a quotation or a link to the diff where he made that statement. (I believe this is it.) And if he has made any further comment on the matter, include at least a link to it too. The reason for this is quite simple: his opinions carry weight on Wikipedia. There are Wikipedians who, if he made the comment that everyone should only edit Wikipedia wearing a beanie cap with a propeller, would immediately buy one & wear it; then there are Wikipedians who react to that statement with countless arguments in opposition -- even if Wales later admitted he was just joking. But because not everyone posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing supported his statement, it is appropriate to include that as a factual observation. What the background section should contain is a factual review of all relevant discussions -- or at least links to them. (Reviewing that RfC, it is clear that the majority of commentators to that page did not support that statement: out of hundreds of people who left their opinions in that discussion, only 66 explicitly supported that statement. However, the people who opposed that statement, either in whole or part, were not in consensus over an alternative to it, nor seem to be in agreement beyond "paid editting in some cases is clearly wrong, & a user can be properly banned for it.") -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Very much appreciate your consideration on this ... I was specifically looking for the best way to present the Using administrator tools; I'd like to be clear and accurate. WP:Admin speaks of a gross violation of community trust; however can we infer that any admin action by a paid editor is by default a violation of trust. I wouldn't mind stating it's generally discouraged - assuming it is - and refer folks to WP:AN if they want clarification? Sorry to nitpick, we need to get it as close to right as possible. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Are you referring to this thread on the talk page? My own, feeling about writing statements on policy is that when a subject is covered on another policy page, there is no need to discuss it on the page in question -- unless the intent is to implicitly create loopholes in the policy, or make it more restrictive. (Think of the rule against 3RR's, but there is a specific exception in the case of cleaning up vandalism; one policy -- 3RR -- is amended by another -- against vandalism.) We have rules about abuse of Admin privileges already; in the case of using/abusing them for pay, the only difference I can see that anyone would agree to is that the penalties should be more severe: for example, instead of just losing the Admin bit, the abuser loses it and gets blocked for a while. But that is just my opinion, based on general principals; if someone wanted to take action against another Wikipedian who abused his privileges for pay in a specific way, I would recommend the matter be first brought to WP:AN/I until a consensus developed about how to handle this. Sorry to ramble so much on this, but I'm hedging my opinions here because I don't want to discover that I'm the guy who created consensus & policy over this matter, when handling these matters needs input & buy-in from a large number of Wikipedians to make it work! -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would be this thread. I'm not sure it even needs to be on the page but if it is it should be accurate. Right now we have

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden.<ref> [[WP:ADMIN]] prohibits gross violations of community trust, which includes making administrative decisions for pay.</ref> ”

I feel we may be erring here to assume any admin action is inherently a "gross violations of community trust". Arbcom was mentioned as stating such but a cite hasn't been forthcoming. I really don't care what the actual status quo is as long as we accurately reflect it even if we state - this is generally a bad idea and ask at ___ if unsure. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of an administrative action undertaken for pay that would be aceptable. Blocking or unblock? Certainly not. Deleting a page? I think most would consider that a problem. Viewing deleted pages? There are issues there, especially if the page had inappropriate content. Protecting or unprotecting pages? It doesn't seem likely anyone would pay for that, but if they did it would be a bad reason. Administrative actions shold be done in strict accordance with Wikipedia policies and for the sole purpose of improving the project and minimizing disruption. Benjiboi, which adminstrative actions do you think would be acceptable to do for pay?   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the types I can envision would more properly fall under WP:COI. Say an employee of a given company who is also an Admin (hey, Admins have bills to pay too!) deletes an article that otherwise meets CSD or BLP criteria; you just know that some disgruntled party is going argue that their primary motivation was due to favoring their employer. (And yes, this can happen: people forget about these things, don't have the time to pass the chore to another Admin, or consider a given example such a blatant violation of the rules they can safely ignore the rules.) My opinion about the entire question of doing Wikipedia work for pay is that many of the possible problems are covered by existing policies; if there are any not covered by existing policies or guidelines they need to be mentioned, discussed & addressed. -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's primarily a COI thing. Say I'm paid to write about Amalgamated Widgets, Inc. I come across an article titled "Deaths allegedly caused by Widgets" and I decide it looks like an attack page. Then deleting that page myself would represent a COI since my employer or client is that company. Now they may not have specifically ordered me to do so or given me a payment for it, but it'd be a COI in any case. The bigger problem here is that COI is a rather weak guideline and, when faced by the powerful forces that money and commerce can bring, it may not be sufficient to protect Wikipedia from turning into a public relations site.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Uh-oh. I seem in danger of exceeding my limit of colons for the month. ;-) Maybe then we ought to discuss the COI guideline. Along those lines, just how well has Wikipedia handled COI when it comes to religion? There is some historical data along those lines, & might give us some insights into how to prevent repeating our failures. The motivations of the faithful employee are often indistinguishable from the religiously devout or members of a cult. IIRC, the first significant incident over "true believers" having a conflict of interest was dealing with a group of LaRouchies who insisted on inserting his collected wisdom into every article. (This was 2003 or 2004, I believe.) -- llywrch (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a page as part of a page move. That could be a non-controversial admin action that one might perform as part of a paid edit. Of course, I think that's a commonsense exception to a policy like this, and one that doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Would this seem to be more accurate? -- Banjeboi 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is generally forbidden and likely seen as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist.<ref> WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admin actions can likely be seen as problematic.</ref> ”

Instead of "generally forbidden" I would like to see "strongly discouraged", but I admit I find it difficult to justify those words even to myself. -- llywrch (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – backlog cleared. Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not nearly as entertaining as admonishing editors on the noticeboards, but I would appreciate it if another administrator could take a crack at the backlog. I have been the only admin handling requests there recently. Aside from general fatigue on my part, I understand that people don't like it when one administrator "takes over" a page. Enigma^msg 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help out, but am not terribly familiar with the area. Is there any guide to best practices (lengths of protection, when to block vs protect and so on) or prevailing conventions, along the lines of WP:FIELD around?  Skomorokh  17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not aware of any such essay. I learned from observing other administrators at work and how they applied the protection policy. If you have any specific questions, I could try to help there. Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, Enigmaman! You only get stuck with all the work because every time I go to check it out, you have already processed all the requests. If you did not work so blazingly fast, there would be something left for the rest of us to do! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All cleared now. Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Enigma, I don't know if you have gotten crap from other admins for "taking over" the board, but as far as I'm concerned, if you are the only admin working the board, go right ahead and do 'em all. Tan | 39 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't personally, but I saw such a concern on a certain RfB. Maybe it isn't shared by many. Enigma^msg 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the RfB you are thinking of, that was mainly because the user had been viewed as sort of a take-charge editor. He had written essays about the page, made tons of proposals, made hundreds of comments in discussions about it... Additionally, it's also Wikipedia's most drama-filled area, unlike RfPP. (X! · talk)  · @112  ·  01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. That allays my concerns. Yeah, it's the same RfB. Enigma^msg 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was in the same boat for a while. When RFPP wears you out, just let it be for a bit until some other schmuck another kind admin shoulders the load for a bit. BTW I'll take care of the current crop of requests. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To respond (somewhat tangentially) to Skomorokh's question, it's not so much a guide as an admin's wry and bitter lament, but it might be worthwhile to read Angela's old essay m:The Wrong Version. It's been a long time since I protected anything, but being prepared in advance for the inevitable accusations is, I suspect, still a good idea. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and less fun (but perhaps more useful) is a page I'm surprised wasn't suggested--Wikipedia:Protection policy. I almost always reviewed it if I was protecting something, just to make sure I had my facts straight. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the policy page. I don't think that's what he was asking for. Enigma^msg 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Captcha help isn't helpful

The instructions given above the captcha are (my emphasis): "To help protect against automated spam, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):". The box contains two words. However, you have to type them in as one word (i.e. without a space separating them). This is very non-obvious, and caused me to fail the captcha twice. Could an admin please expand either the text above the captcha or the help page to explain this? HenryAyoola (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's weird, I always entered it as 2 words... Did something change? (I can't seem to be able to trigger the captcha today, grrr). -- Luk ^talk 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked, it doesn't work. I'm unsure exactly how to change the wording (possibly switch to say "enter the word" instead?), but I'm fairly certain all the pages that would need to be changed are on this list. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Enter the words without any spaces", or "Enter the words, removing any spaces", maybe? I'm not sure what the exact format of the CAPTCHA is, though. Would that be any more clear? --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine. I'll go make the change on the pages now. Also, if you need to take a look at one of the CAPTCHAs, just log out and try to create an account, or add an external link to an article while logged out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. HenryAyoola (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Enter the letters" might be less verbose, which is probably good unless we want to make it very clear those are supposed to be words (which we might, I dunno). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Words" would probably be important; a human would be able to interpret an ambiguous letter based on what fits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaxby

This user is intentionally editing disruptively.[2][3] Why doesn't someone block the account?—SpaceFlight89 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See ANI thread. Deor (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3 day old thread...lack of admins willing to block? Does this belong to WP:AIV?—SpaceFlight89 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two examples could be regarded as not vandalism; someone defaces a WP page and Zaxby notes the edit as "nonsense" / an ip address is noted as being compromised, which Zaxby notes is not possible since anon addresses have no owner. Not saying that Zaxby may not be a problem, but those diffs do not show bad intentions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Zaxby's editing history shows they've been reverting people for frivolous reasons, creating hoax pages, commiting blatant vandalism and changing birth dates maliciously[4]. The editor knows how to undo edits (that's what they've been doing most of the time); I can't imagine a reason why they would tag Wikipedia:Introduction for deletion instead of reverting the bad edits, other than that they are just pissing around.—SpaceFlight89 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See also the block log: [5] - indef blocked on 15 Aug, but reversed by the same admin after realising there was no final warning. Certainly the old edits linked from here look problematic as a pattern, but unless there are recent problems (post 15 Aug - and I don't see any), he should get a chance. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I missed the link to an SPI issue - possible sock of User:Thechroniclesofratman. See WP:ANI#User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry. That needs looking into - can somebody file an SPI? Rd232 ^talk 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Post 15 Aug the user has stepped down from blatant vandalism to biting newcomers and reverting edits.

• See [6], SridharRatnakumar (now NeuroBells123) had not made any personal attack, still the level 4 warning and harsh comments.
• Reverting new users for not adding a "source", and sometimes the reverts are outright wrong[7][8]. Removal of valid AIV report with a wise*** edit summary [9] (note that the IP was a spambot, and was correctly reported as "a spambot or compromised account"). Its hard to assume good faith with edits such as this, specially when the user had been vandalizing earlier. —SpaceFlight89 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Another bad revert (IP he reverted was correcting previous birthdate vandalism). Zaxby was mainly devoted to creating his hoax/fantasty user page (which I MfD'd here), with the occasional clueless or vandalistic edit, until other editors began to take notice of his activities; whereupon he began the current set of rapid problematic edits, apparently in an effort to persuade everyone that he's a good little Wikipedian. Can't he be stopped on WP:COMPETENCE grounds if nothing else? Deor (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reversion of one of his incomprehensible edits today. He's also just deleted a bit of stern advice I left on his talk page, labeling it vandalism and dropping a {{uw-tempabuse3}} on my talk page. Deor (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?—SpaceFlight89 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SInce no one bothered to notify him of this thread, or that he was being watched for his problematic edits, I have done so. Please be certain to notify editors when they are being talked about here. --Jayron32 05:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned this user a day or two ago about placing bad reports on AIV, as I'd seen at least 2 reports from them that weren't AIV material in the past few days. They simply removed the warning. Edits like this don't give me too much confidence that they've reformed. Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been trouble for weeks. I think there's more than enough evidence to show a sockpuppet of multiple previously blocked accounts (so he's block evading), he's used false edit summaries in attempts to make subtle changes to articles (so he's lying to other editors) as well as hide vandalism (so he's a vandal), he's added hoaxes about himself to articles (so more lying), he's insisted on calling people who warn him names (so he's uncivil), and then he pretends that everything's fine and dandy and he should be allowed to continue because he's somehow the best recent edits watcher (so he's delusional).

I really don't know what more could possibly be needed for something to be done about this user and it's frustrating to sit here and watch him continue to not only accuse people of things, but to accuse them and attempt to reprimand people for doing the exact same things he's been accused of, as if he's suddenly made up for all his past transgressions! The first time I reported him to AN/I, an admin said his edits at that point (this was before he started attempting to greet people/revert vandalism) alone were cause enough for a block but that he had not yet received a final level warning so the block could not be used at that point. So with these new elements, I think he's not well above and beyond the line of something needing to be done. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to take this to SPI to attempt to get something done? This user continues to show zero interest in listening to others or for actually improving Wikipedia. He continues to add unreferenced information to Wikipedia while RC Patroling to remove unreferenced information from other users within minutes. This kid lives in a fantasy world where he thinks he's doing great things as a free patriotic American and continues his other fantasy life, as a NASCAR driver. There is nothing good coming from this user and not the slightest sign that he cares to change that. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD

There are currently 201 pages at C:SD, so it's starting to get a bit backlogged. Image admins would be helpful. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Down to 35 pages, 122 images.  Skomorokh  16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Back up to 176. Fun. Enigma^msg 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345 mentorship

This post is to inform the community that I have begun mentoring Wikifan12345 as was suggested in a recent ANI. Any community member is welcome to ask questions regarding this mentorship here or at my talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does your mentorship imply? Consensus in that ANI thread was for a topic ban on Israel related articles, for the remainder of 2009. I'm sure Wikifan agrees to being mentored so as to avoid the topic ban, but I don't think there was any consensus for that. All I see on Wikifan's talk page is him trying to wikilaywer his way out of the topic ban, after plainly ignoring it for the past few weeks. If your mentorship implies seeing to it that he follows the ban, then that's fine, but that's clearly not what Wikifan intended.--Atlan (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My mentorship implies that I am mentoring Wikifan, nothing more. I cannot speak to Wikifan's intentions in entering mentorship. There was a misunderstanding with regards to the topic ban, since the discussion was automatically archived before being reviewed and closed. I am counseling Wikifan to follow the community's consensus, but I am unable to enforce the topic ban as I am not an admin. I hope that I've adequately addressed your concerns; if not, please let me know. --Gimme danger (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me then, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the mentorship can help this user learn to work better with others, but his excuses that there was a misunderstanding or that the discussion "went stale" are without merit. The topic ban garnered consensus, and it was officially logged at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans. If it is being broken...and it certainly appears that it is...then is it now a matter for WP:AE to deal with? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was logged less than a day ago. Even though I find the "discussion going stale before resolution" excuse quite unconvincing, let's enforce the ban from that moment on.--Atlan (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries

If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Wikipedia should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of one vandal who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which are still blocked. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would support lifting some of these to see if the vandal has given up. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. John Reaves 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. Thatcher 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and KnightLago had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

let them expire now. this is the sort of very extensive school block that should be a last resort, and be used for very limited periods. With the abuse filter, we now have a very wide range of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request backlog

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests needs to be cleared out by a few admins. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed header of Special:NewFiles

Per recent addition to commons:Special:NewFiles, I decided to make similar addition here. Though as the link added links to a tool I've created, I notify you here so you know. The relevant interface message is MediaWiki:Newimages-summary _→AzaToth 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"A Database Error Occurred". :) Amalthea 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver is at the moment doing hardware maintenance on just the s1 db replica, so sadly en-wp is not available this minute :( (sadly there isn't an machine-readable way to indicate server-availability on toolserver yet. _→AzaToth 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks

Can anyone explain as to how the following blocks by Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) violates username policy?

• Ihatehorrormovies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), with one edit that is low-level vandalism, does not warrant an indefinite block of dubious accord based on a username.
• M1k3ypwns3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for having an offensive username. The user has just one edit.
• XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for much the same, only that there are no edits.
• Longlivecommunism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, despite there being only two edits on record.
• Bottracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked because of the word "bot" embedded in the username.

I can list further examples, but I am not too pleased that little or incorrect rationale is being given to these surmised username violations. seicer | talk | contribs 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all a little inexplicable. From a read through the talk page of the last one, it looks like there could have been a (better) discussion about the concerns surrounding the name and, if that was the genuine concern, a softblock could have been applied (as the user even suggested). It rather seems that other issues were the real problem and the name issue was what was used as an indef justification which seems like an endrun around dealing with the original issues that the user had. The original block for copyright issues at the top of the talkpage seems on the surface to be a little hasty (unless there are other facts that aren't obvious) and it looks like the situation then got out of control without any real cool down/explanation time. As far as the others go, it appears that the vandalism only account reasoning was used prematurely without an adequate pattern to permit that judgement. None of those names suggest to me a user with no intent to contribute constructively without the associated contributions history to back that assessment. Mfield (Oi!) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take more than one edit to make a judgement on a vandalism only account. Really. Brandon (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper protocol does not parse judgment on one edit, per blocking policy, and then assign a false block summary based upon a vague descriptor. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I disagree, I am sure there are plenty of editors who's first edit was not constructive. I am not questioning the application of a block, but to block indefinitely, as a vandalism-only account, seems like not using that specific justification as it may be intended. Sure, if a user only has one edit and that edit is vandalism then their account is by definition a vandalism-only account. But a 24 hour block would stop the immediate problem and might well prompt them not to continue vandalizing. A second, constructive, edit would then make their account not vandalism-only. I feel it is rushing to judgement to make a block after only one edit, especially if the vandalism does not appear to be overly malicious or could be interpreted as initial messing about from a newbie. How do you make a certain enough assessment on the character of a person you have never met based on one edit without knowing anything else about the person? I am a fairly regular admin patrolling UAA and I wouldn't feel comfortable hardblocking a username as displaying an intent not to contribute constructively with that little track record to go on, nor would i feel comfortable declaring an account to be vandalism only with the same short record to go on. Mfield (Oi!) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

When I was an admin, I didn't patrol UAA but I blocked vandalism-only accounts fairly regularly. I did not block accounts whose edits consisted of one edit, or two edits, and make broad assumptions that it was therefore a username block. seicer | talk | contribs 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking those accounts because of their user names is just plain stupid. --DroolingVegetable (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, your username is way more offensive than any of the above. Mfield (Oi!) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with Nja247 before bringing it here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As a general note, not on these specifically, I have always found the username blocks have been WAY over applied here. Unless the name itself is GROSSLY DISRUPTIVE, the situation could probably be better handled by asking the account holder to file for a WP:CHU instead of blocking outright. Don't even get me started on the overextension of the "spamusername" block rationale... (AFTER EC with WTWAG). Yeah, I also second WTWAG. Has there been any attempt to get your questions answered privately by Nja247 before dragging him before the WP:AN tribunal? --Jayron32 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On that note I was trying to make general comments and points on the blocks in question myself, rather than pass judgement on the actions of the admin in question. Mfield (Oi!) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is a larger issue that should merit further questioning and investigation throughout. I've noted other dubious UAA blocks in recent weeks - blocks that should be overturned. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say at the very least the last two are acceptable blocks. Bottracker is a clear violation of WP:U, namely "your name should not end or begin with 'bot' ." Longlivecommunism could easily be seen as a promotional username, although perhaps more edits could have been used to asses the user wasn't trying to promote communism; the vandalism obscured that chance. 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My take with Bottracker, is that the user was blocked for copyright violations, but before he had an adequate chance to discuss his edits or to potentially take corrective action -- which no one pointed the user to the right direction and decided to template-spam the guy -- he was indef'ed for a username violation. And his talk page disabled. Great way to show a user the welcome mat. seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:U do NOT mandate instablocks. See Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames which recommends about 6 things you can do BEFORE blocking someone. Unless the username is grossly profane or disgusting, it is far less rude to attempt to get a good faith user to use WP:CHU rather than blocking them. Look at it this way, there are three kinds of bad usernames:

1. Borderline cases where the user is a good faith editor: start a dialogue and politely request them to request a username change at WP:CHU.
2. Borderline cases where the user is a vandal/spammer/otherwise bad editor: block them for the editing, not the username. If you block them for their username, it implies that, and not the behavior, is the problem
3. Eggregiously bad usernames which are grossly profane or disruptive: block away.

FAR too often, admins quickly block ALL of these situations, which according to WP:U, is clearly against best practices. We should try to work with new users to choose a correct username rather than blocking them for an unintended violation. --Jayron32 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I addressed Nja247 privately about M1k3ypwns3 and Zz022 (not on this list). Both discussions are already archived in User talk:Nja247/Archive 06. He was mildly apologetic about M1k3ypwns3, but brought out the defense that "he was going to be a vandal anyway". He didn't back down on Zz022. I let it drop, because I figured that Nja247 was generally reasonable, the point had been made, and it would be better to try to stop people from reporting these names in the first place. So I'm disheartened to see this list of further unjustified username blocks. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"He was going to be a vandal anyway", while often a correct prediction, is simply not a valid reason for blocking, especially not under the pretense of a username block.--Atlan (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should not be issued on Bottracker. It's quite clear Bottracker never had the intention to confuse others as a bot account. Who's next to block? Someone that has a username starting with "Bottle" or "Botany"? I see that Nja247 wishes to issue blocks reckless rather than spending time explaining. It's exactly this kind of behavior that contributes to the decline of new users. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I made it a point, towards the end of my adminship, to at least extend an olive branch with the hope that some of these editors could be reformed. While it was a fruitless effort with some, I did manage to snag a few editors to the bright light. Bottracker never, never, never had the intention to be confused with a bot -- it was a harmless mistake, and in his confusion and in his question, there were administrators who refused to answer his questions. Instead, they were dismissed and his talk page was disabled, with a cowardly message left stating that he had to e-mail some list to be unblocked. Good job. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to me that the blocks were not just for the usernames, but the usernames and the edit or edits made in relation the username. It seems rather aggressive enforcment, but I think showing restraint towards content contributors would be more beneficial than worrying about extending good faith for a borderline username that makes joke edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With that kind of reasoning, you can find a reason to block a whole lot of newbies. Many people start out by doing one or two things "wrong", like having a borderline username or making joke edits. There's too much focus on punishing newbies for breaking any of the large number of rules Wikipedia has, instead of explaining the rules and trying to put things right in a way that keeps the editor editing. I'm not promising it will always work, but if we're to stop the declining participation in Wikipedia, we need to try.

But that aside, what's even "borderline" about these usernames? What rule were they on the verge of breaking (leave out the "bot" one, which is a kind of stupid technicality)? You can't just point at someone with no justification and say "You have a borderline username! That means we don't have to assume good faith from you." rspεεr (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let me note this is really a bit of a kick in the teeth. I would have appreciated a more direct attempt to discuss the concern with myself, possibly at the username policy, UAA , or my own talk pages. Further, an apology would be expected for calling my actions cowardly. If these had been brought to my attention ahead of time I would have discussed it. However coming directly here is quite odd, and I have issue with it, and with the attack on me. What's truly to be accomplished from this? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note, when actually asked in an appropriate manner I respond. See here for a discussion already done on M1k3ypwns3. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You responded, and I even chose not to escalate it at the time, but I can't say I'm happy with your response of basically saying "my bad" and continuing to block newbies for no good reason. Seicer had every right to start this thread, because AN is an appropriate forum for the continued misuse of blocking powers. For comparison, you'll likely come out of this with just a wounded ego, but users such as Bottracker and XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox are just gone. I'll take five new users over an admin's pride any day. rspεεr (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Further, what is this all about? Nja²⁴⁷ 08:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lacking common courtesy and calling me cowardly is hardly an issue with wounded pride. And again, what's the goal here? If they wanted my attention about concerns they had about the block that's what talk pages are for. This isn't a severe or ongoing pattern and along with the name calling I question intent. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this not an ongoing pattern? I see blocks spanning almost a month from mid-July to mid-August. Can you please respond to the original statement of questionable username blocks, rather than guessing at the intent of other users here? --NE2 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think four separate blocks are enough to be a concern. Your response of "you can unblock" plus "what now" doesn't indicate any belief that it was a bad block, or more accurately, it may have been a bad block but it isn't something worth fixing or apologizing to the blocked user for. Do you think it was just a small error, because that's exactly what I'm concerned about. Blocks are a BIG deal, and especially indefinite blocks like that, and it seems others feel the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's an issue and I don't discourage discussing the concern, however I wonder what this is meant to accomplish? If it were brought to my direct attention I would have listened. Simply having five others say the same thing doesn't do anything at all for me or those users. I've apologised for the error made when it was brought to my attention and since the discussion on the 8th-10th of this month I've been trying to ensure any username block action taken is within policy. Ricky missed "I'm open to all suggestions you have to make it better and I apologise for this possible mistake in advance." I've done my best to address the concerns, but I do not see how this is meant to be helpful and I think an answer as to the end goal is deserved as well as an apology for the attack. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've gotten me to notice something that I think is being overlooked in this discussion: all the blocks Seicer listed are old, and they predate when I talked to you about M1k3ypwns3. After that there were still other users you blocked after very small violations, such as User:UnNeggafied and User:Zz022, which was the second one I brought up. And since then you've toned it down. I was misled about the chronological order of things, and thought you had recently made these bad blocks. That doesn't make them okay, but we should move on.

At this point, then, I just want you to realize the severity of blocking anyone, no matter what their status on Wikipedia, and think about the newbie behind each account. The discussions I had with you didn't give me any confidence. I want you to realize that you were pretty clearly in the wrong in the Bottracker incident (unless there are some oversighted edits I'm not seeing?) and I think your actions there could be accurately, if bluntly, described as cowardly. But I seriously apologize to you for perpetuating the misinterpretation that you were still doing this kind of thing. rspεεr (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks are one of the most worthless activities that can be pursued on this site. John Reaves 09:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• And further, what's this all about? "Vote for your favourite!" and seicer "I have nothing better to do, so I started a thread at AN". I'm not amused at the fact that there's a poll being ran as a joke to vote for a favourite of my blocks. Nor would the users who are blocked. Obviously you can't help that it was started, but if you truly had nothing better to do, then why not discuss it with me as I'd like to know about my mistakes and have a chance to address them, rather than be a discussion and/or joke on some back forum. As noted above I apologised and have done my best since that discussion and I plan to move on and possibly take the advice of John Reaves and let that aspect of Wikipedia alone. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That WR thread is as ugly as most threads about Wikipedians on WR, but you shouldn't make it sound like Seicer started the thread or said "Vote for your favorite!". Seicer actually did bring it to Wikipedia, which is much better than a bunch of WR people sniping from afar. rspεεr (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Nja247 has pointed out to me that he made an honest mistake in attributing that to Seicer. No problem. rspεεr (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this is bound to happen because of WP:U itself - maybe we should change it? Maybe we should refine it as much as our blocking over vandalism? It always occurred to me that we're more lenient with vandals than those with the wrong username. Shouldn't that change? -- Mentifisto 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Correct. I only had free time, but yes, I do check UAA from time-to-time. I am a former administrator and did handle some UAA requests -- although I found it to be a most useless endeavor because IMO, there are bigger fish to fry and because the risk of alienating new users is pretty high. Doesn't matter if it was posted at WR, where I rarely post -- and if you note, where I am fairly often criticized for my actions, so it's not as if I am the popular guy around there. In addition, I am not apologizing for the thread being brought up here, and for bruised egos.

I'll survive. It's not so much a bruised ego, as you've put it on multiple forums, but rather dramatising things rather than going straight to the source. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Things happen, administrators make mistakes, you learn and hope to make the best of a situation and go from there. Since you have noted that you are going to pursue other venues than UAA for now, someone should at least review some of those blocks and unblock the users that pose no threat -- e.g. Bottracker, since there is consensus here that he was doing no ill or harm outside of a mistaken name. seicer | talk | contribs 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• And yes, there is no oversight over UAA as much as there is over bad blocks sent to AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - it seems to me some of this problem arises from inappropriate use of {{Uw-uhblock}} instead of {{Uw-ublock}}. The former is, to all intents and purposes, "fuck off and don't come back". (Too strong? Imagine getting it slapped on your userpage after your first couple of edits.) The latter says, "hey, listen, your name isn't totally cool, but that's OK, you can choose a new account name straight away or request a username change." The former, obviously, should be used with great caution. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger problem is that every block says to every newbie "fuck off and don't come back". Regardless of the nuances of the template we leave on their talk page when we block them, regardless of how nicely worded it is, blocking is a drastic thing to do to someone, especially a new user, and if there is anyway we can correct or steer a newbie in the right direction without blocking them is ALWAYS preferable to blocking. That's the problem with nearly all username blocks. --Jayron32 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's also true. Warning messages should be used if at all possible before blocking. At the moment we seem to {{Uw-username}}, which may be underused as it requires a manual reason. Maybe we can adapt {{Uw-ublock}} for a warning/notification message? That would probably help. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tried a draft here: {{Uw-usernamewarn}}. How's that look? Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucratic. What was wrong with actually telling the user what you're warning them about? rspεεr (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. But people who do a lot of this stuff in practice (I do zip) often don't, and perhaps end up blocking instead at least in some cases (block templates are one-shot, and then, with block, it's quickly done and dusted), and if a partial reason for that is that there isn't a one-shot template ({{username}} needs a parameter to explain the reasoning), well then we should have a one-shot warning template. Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we should make some one-shot templates for the different things you could be warning them about (as well as common combinations of policies, like "slightly promotional username + COI" or "slightly disruptive username + vandalism"). Templates should at least try to sound like a message a real person should leave, so "I'm warning you for one of the following N reasons" is not a helpful template. rspεεr (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I slightly disagree - in most cases people will be read the template and know what they're doing wrong. And if it isn't obvious, the warning editor shouldn't use the template! More specific ones might be better, yes, but if we start getting lots of them, it just adds to the stack of templates for people to not quite remember when they need them. Rd232 ^talk 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary thought, so bear with me, a concerned editor could take the time to craft a personal note they actually thought through and wrote themselves specificly for the situation, and then could follow through with the newbie to see that any problems they have are easily fixed. --Jayron32 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

O we can dream.... Seriously, in the recent past I'm feeling that overuse of templates is becoming a problem - especially the templates which look Official rather than vaguely like templated personal messages. (And how about those welcome templates that take up half a page - way to go overwhelming people...). Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Every one of those ought to be unblocked, for reasons thoroughly covered above. Bottracker can be asked to get a new name, NOT because of a three letter string in his name, but because the entire name sounds almost like a sanctioned function of the project, tracking the performance of the various automated processes running here. The entire 'no using 'bot' in a name rule has massive flaws, as the WR points out... Botany for example? Botched, like these blocks? The rule should be that any new user making a name which can reasonably be interpreted as the name of a bot account or other automated process will be asked to change it, not blocked on sight. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked all five accounts discussed here. We can't undo the damage, but we can't let the blocks stand, either. If Bottracker were to come back, we might want to make a very friendly suggestion about his name, but it's not that important. If he does miraculously come back and see the unblock message, he deserves to be left alone by the username process. I feel terrible about the way that Wikipedia treated him. rspεεr (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the facts first, Bottracker's original block had nothing to do with his username

I see. I blocked Bottracker for "Disruptive editing: refusal to discuss copyright issues and extreme personal attacks possibly driving another editor away" and he is now told that "The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so. ". What in the world is going on here when an Admin blocks someone for what they think are good reasons, and without even dealing with the reason for the original block at all, or having the courtesy to contact me, he's unblocked? And his username wasn't the basic reason for changing the block so he couldn't edit his own talk page either, which was the only other action before he was unblocked for reasons which had nothing to do with the block. Why is he owed an apology, as Rspeer has said on his talk page? I wouldn't mind being told I shouldn't have blocked him for continued copyright violations, but I'd expect a discussion. It's a shame the other Admin even mentioned the username business as it wasn't the actual reason for the block and that caused confusion. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I'm off to bed now so won't be replying. I do think that the apology to him suggests he did nothing wrong, which is simply not the case. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Doug obviously I made an error, but I have no comment on the rest of it, though I don't see how your original block is now unjustified. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the edit history there raises serious concerns that existed (and arguably continue exist) quite independent from any username block. The nature of the hasty unblock does not appear to be as prudent as it should have been. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's establish something here. Is there any evidence that Bottracker's images actually violated a copyright? It looks like he was trying to argue the whole time that the images were his own, but they started being sent through processes to get them deleted (which are bewildering to a newbie). He tried to add the appropriate tags and another user he was arguing with removed them. The statement that he was "refusing to discuss copyright issues" looks false on the face of it. It looks more like everyone else was refusing to discuss it with him. If there was some solid evidence of a copyright violation and he was pulling an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's different, but I haven't found such a thing yet in Bottracker's editing history. I do not think that blocking was the correct resolution to that dispute. rspεεr (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That, and during the times he was attempting to discuss the issues at hand, he was censored and was told he was attacking administrators -- which wasn't the case. His talk page was disabled and he was essentially told to fuck off. A new user. seicer | talk | contribs 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

At the point I blocked him, he had never commented on his talk page but had blanked every warning. About 36 of his uploads had been deleted by various editors. Two other Administrators declined his unblock request. He was in a heated discussion with personal attacks with another (leading to that users temporary and newer user with edits such as this [10]. Four Administrators were involved in his block. Anthony.bradbury's reason for his decline was ""You received no less than twelve messages, still present on this page, relating directly to the copyright issue for which you are blocked. You are, agreed, allowed to blank your talk page, although doing so to remove warnings is not good practice. I suggest that you read carefully our policy on copyright violation, which you have breached on a large number of occasions, before requesting an unblock. At present you clearly do not understand this policy, and it is necessaryt that you do so". Then Jéské Couriano declined a second unblock request, saying ""Your unblock request is disingenuous, as indicated below, and the prerogative is as much yours as it is his, especially where copyright violations are concerned. If nobody approached you, why did you not approach the people who placed the warnings on your page rather than removing them straightaway?". And now he's had a 'sincere apology' for our actions. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides to every story, so let me re-summarize from what I see. He started by uploading a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. He got into a dispute with other users who were accusing him of violating copyright. He lashed out once out of frustration, especially given that he did not believe he was violating copyright because he had taken the pictures in question. The dispute escalated, and administrators piled on him for not following the right procedures. Then, in a glorious example of how not to de-escalate a dispute, they blocked him. So, did he do something wrong besides being a newbie and not following procedures? rspεεr (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But is not the reason you unblocked him. He never responded on his talk page to numerous notices. Several other administrators deleted images he uploaded. He didn't get blocked for not following the right procedures, he got blocked because instead of discussing the notices on his talk page he simply deleted them, never responding, and because he attacked another editor. It was an indefinite block and the whole thing could have been over within minutes if he'd started to respond civilly (although given the edits he did to on the other user's talk page, this seemed unlikely). His unblock requests showed no interest in having a discussion or changing his behavior, which is why two other administrator's declined his unblock requests. You are saying they were wrong, but (repeating myself) he didn't respond in a way that would encourage anyone to unblock him. Dealing with copyright violations is a huge pain in the neck, particularly image ones. And then when another Admin comes along and tells him blocking him was unjustified and gives him a 'sincere apology' - what message does that send? You didn't even comment on the issue, just told him in effect that he was right and the other 4 nasty Administrators were wrong. And perhaps all the Admins who deleted his files? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Report Members

Resolved

 – IP warned level 1 Mfield (Oi!) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

124.217.76.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted an entire section off of BIOS. Please respond to me on my talk page when someone reads this message, and then take appropriate action. Btilm (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Without any prior history the proper course of action is to issue them a level 1 warning which you can do. I have done it for you this time. If the action is repeated then the warning can be escalated. Once adequate warnings have been issued up to a final warning the IP could be reported to WP:AIV but until that point, no further admin action is necessary. Mfield (Oi!) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

General improvements to the header at WP:SPI

Administrators,

I've taken the liberty to try to make some improvements at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header, where all the instructions and basic SPI guidelines are displayed. A working copy of the page with my proposed revisions can be found in my sandbox. I have also opened up a section for discussion at WT:SPI if anybody wants to discuss any further changes or make other suggestions. Anyone is also free to make any edits they seem fit on my sandbox page if desired. Regards, MuZemike 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Subhamrony

Subhamrony (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images with no source information, no copyright information, no licensing information—no information at all, in fact (see his/her User talk:Subhamrony for the string of deletion notifications). Should the user be blocked until s/he shows a willingness, and ability, to abide by our image policies? There may be a language problem involved here, but the user is certainly wasting a lot of the time of the editors who have to clean up after him or her. Deor (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for more input

Resolved

Please see the discussion at the List of honorific titles in popular music AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed it as Keep. The arguements were going around in circles, it was 11 days open, and there were more than enough comments to parse consensus. See my closing comments for more details. --Jayron32 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

For the duration of this case, Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined. Any uninvolved administrator may issue blocks up to 24 hours in duration for violations of this injunction. Attempts to game the injunction may also be taken into consideration.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Explanation about abuse filters please

I was doing my blocking vandal routine, when this report popped up. Apparently it had triggered an abuse filter. I had a look at the contributions, but there was nothing there (not even deleted). The report mentioned something about a banned user; the IP address was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

I'm not questioning the actions taken against the IP address; clearly an indefinite block was expected (going by the comment left to my query). However, as I have never come across this sort of case before, I thought it best to ask here if someone could explain to me what was going on? Please use words of less than one syllable though... it is late and I am tired! (grin) Stephen! ^Coming... 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter 166 is apparently set to disallow, meaning it stopped the ip from making the edit, repeatedly--Jac16888^Talk 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I think I'm gonna have to sleep on this, and hope my brain recharges overnight, and can make sense of any explanations! Shame abuse filters were never covered in my admin coaching... LOL! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, The IP tried to make an edit, and the filter wouldn't let them. But the filter keeps a record of the attempts so people can see whos trying to make edits they shouldn't--Jac16888^Talk 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So where does the banned user come in to it, and how come the IP address gets blocked indefinitely? Stephen! ^Coming... 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about this filter in particular, but it seems its set entirely to stop a banned sockpuppeteer, who probably makes distinctive edits. As for the indef block, didn't actually notice that, no idea why that is, could be a mistake--Jac16888^Talk 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I started checking diffs and contribs to see if the suggestion (given by the bot) of the IP being a banned user was correct (after the fact), and I couldn't see the similarities. I reduced the block to 48 hrs, for repeatedly setting off the abuse filter. Again, my apologies. And yes, this filter was set to "disallow" those edits, so none of them would show up in contribs or deleted contribs. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

When processing these sorts of AIV block requests, you can see the attempted edits that triggered the filter by looking at the edit filter log. Here is the one for the IP in question. I do not know of an 'easy' way to see the EFlog, so I just click the "contribs" link and then the "filter log" link at the top. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Reports Total Revamp

Hi All, User:Netalarm and I have been working on cleaning up and totally revamping the Abuse Reports project, since it is in utter dire straits but we strongly believe it is a very important part of Wikipedia. We are requesting feedback on our proposals to the project at Wikipedia:Abuse_Reports/2009_Revamp. Please note that these are NOT final proposals, nor is this page complete—this is by far a work-in-progress, and the renovation is a very fluid process. That being said, it would not be a bad idea for you to come back and check this page again soon. Please, all comments and feedback are welcomed. Thanks!!   bsmithme  22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

The rollback feature is used to quickly revert vandalism. Am I allowed to use it to revert blanking a section?  Btilm  00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Depends if the blanking was vandalism or not. What's the example? Protonk (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not remember...it was just deleting a section. They did not put anything in place of the section.  Btilm  00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I was using a pc and had access to huggle, I used the built in edit summary. It was something like "reverting unexplained removal of content". I don't know if something like that exists for twinkle or the rest of the anti-vandalism alphabet soup. I would just leave an edit summary to be safe. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

twinkle

Is there another way to warn a user using twinkle than having to go to their user page?  Btilm  00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't the normal install of twinkle have links for that on the "history" page? I know it had like a bunch of links on there, so I installed a different package that removed them. Also, general questions about twinkle and rollback are best posed to the help desk or the village pump. Or even better, check out the documentation at WP:TWINKLE. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

When is blanking considered vandalism?  Btilm  02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what is being deleted. If the article is a WP:BLP, vast swathes of un-sourced material could be blanked without it being problem. Likewise, as per WP:USER editors are permitted to remove messages from their own talk pages as they see fit. If you have not already done so, a review of WP:VAND#NOT may be informative. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:By78

The user is indulging in disruptive editing with [pages] including | INS Arihant page. In the Arihant class submarine page, launch is replaced with | Float-out. Bcs09 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and doesn't require the intervention of administrators. For my money, float out works just as well as launch, though I can see the argument that launching is the figurative activity and floating out is the literal practice which replaced launching. May want to ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships which term is more common in ship articles. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice please article issues.

I am watching the pages of Cabuyao, Laguna (with major edits done bu User: Othanwiki2009), and Santa Maria, Bulacan (with major edits done by User:Secaundis), for almost months, and I noticed that the Santa Maria article grew into like a directory, list of dining places, telephone numbers, fare matrix for public transportation, resorts, recreational sites, transportation terminals and even directories for schools and emergency concerns. Earlier this day, I removed all possible failures that may not meet with WP guidelines: and put them all on its talk page. I notified the contributor Secaundis about this, and he said on my talk page (it is in Filipino, I warned him, and I said he should speak in English) that I am biased that I am tagging his pages not instead those long ones. I just want to know if I am doing good so far, and what action are intended for Secaundis. I am also in doubt of the authenticity of the data he inserted on the page, but when I asked him about it (I challenged him that I will insert {{fact}} on each unverified claims, those that need inline citations, but I used a generalized template {{nofootnotes}} instead so the article won't look messy; he on my talk page --still Filipino-- that he is lazy to do inline citations on those claims because primarily, they came from the official site of Santa Maria. What does it implies? Then, I am thinking if the whole article, is a copyright violation, sure plagiarism from multiple sources.)

On Othanwiki2009, he does good, but he is creating articles plagiarized, like History of Cabuyao (which I tagged earlier). I also tagged Imno ng Cabuyao, because other than the lyrics of the song, it has no information on the composer, the composer's death. Per WP:LYRICS, it falls into possible infringement. He removed the tag, and says on the article's talk page that he will look for the composer. I told him to use {{hangon}} instead, especially that the article is not on CSD but on PROD. Well, Cabuyao , Laguna, his article, turns to be copied from the sites on the Cabuyao's external links, and again, with no citation where it came from. When we say "you add the citation", does it mean that copying directly the statement/whole paragraph from the site then adding a citation falls into plagiarism?

I think they both ignored it. I tagged Santa Maria months before for its multiple issues like no footnotes, etc. but Secaundis removed it. In Cabuyao, too, Othanwiki2009 removed the tag without addressing the concern. I do believe too, that Santa Maria and Cabuyao were copied directly from a site or sites included on the external links section (since it is impossible to add figures-- where those came from?). The articles grow very long, too, and many things unnecessary appears there. I need advice what to do. Thanks.--JL 09^{Talk to me!} 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Secaundis was already reprimanded a few months ago for his use of Tagalog. As for his removal of tags, it may be an attempt to own, but stripping the tags when their issues have not been addressed is foul. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam problem

There could be over a 100 articles under Category:Internet television series and it's sub categories which are not notable/spam. If any admins could go through and delete some, it would save me flooding afd.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)