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

Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users

NOTE: per this conversation with bureaucrat Xeno, I am bringing this issue up at the Administrators' noticeboard. I am contacting all the users that reviewed either a)the initial block and/or b)the block lift, on their talk pages.

Appreciation
This is absolutely the most important point of this message. I want to publicly thank Xeno for reviewing the indefinite rangeblocks. If Xeno had not reviewed the indefinite rangeblocks, I would still be blocked as I have not figured out how to create an account through alternate means as was suggested in the initial blocking. Thank you, Xeno. You are a valuable asset to Wikipedia. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Overview
During a period of concern about vandalism, which included heavy blocking, an ISP for low-income users was rangeblocked. This block lasted for two and a half years before it was lifted.

Reason for initial block
NoCharge was not blocked because of massive vandalism from multiple users. It was not even blocked for a single specific vandalism incident. Instead it was preemptively blocked because it was thought that vandals might possibly find out that it was a free service. I believe it started as a conversation about free trial accounts at Internet providers and that those accounts could possibly be used for vandalism. Somebody mentioned that NoCharge was free and said it could possibly be used as a proxy. Once it was labeled as a proxy, it was closed as being a proxy even though it hadn't been used as such.

Purpose
I want to let people know that heavy-handed decisions can have unintended consequences which include enormous collateral damage to Wikipedia's volunteers.

Admission of ignorance
I am a new user and am still learning my way around. I am not familiar with how things work around here, so I am speaking from a position of ignorance in that regard. Any education people can provide me is greatly appreciated. Thank you. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Admission of bias
I am one of many casualties of this rangeblock so my point of view is highly biased. Therefore, I shall refrain from joining in on this conversation except to provide details and answer questions. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Details
During mid to late 2007, there was great concern about vandalism on Wikipedia. This is the period when JarlaxleArtemis changed his name to Grawp and was highly active. A large number of blocks happened during this period. Many of these went unnoticed, others, like the block of User:!!, were highly visible and caused many users to question how freely people were blocking.

About two weeks before User:!! was blocked, NoCharge.com - the entire ISP - was indefinitely rangeblocked and I was one of many casualties of that block. I had just started my Wikipedian career and was making minor edits anonymously. I did not see a reason to have an "official" account at that point as I was not doing much editing and was just learning the system. I can tell you that I was devastated when the block happened. I felt then, as I do now, that Wikipedia is important to humanity. There is nothing more noble than educating the public, in my humble opinion, and I wanted to be a part of it. Not only was I no longer able to contribute, but I was also lumped in with people who vandalized Wikipedia. I also want to point out that it was not just me, it was also every other person that used NoCharge as an ISP.

NoCharge is a free dialup service that provides Internet access. The service runs at one half dialup speed, and as such, is used almost exclusively by low-income people. This slow speed means that pages that have a few pictures, like the main page, take about 3 minutes to load on a web browser. I can tell you this slowness is very frustrating, but when you are poor, you take what you can get. So the two and a half-year block essentially punished low-income people for what vandals may have possibly done at some future date. As far as I am aware, only a single individual from NoCharge was ever able to contribute to Wikipedia during the two and a half-year block. And that was only after trying many avenues, jumping through many hoops, and finally having to contact Jimmy Wales directly. This is when the hard block changed to a soft block, but with account creation disabled so new contributors could still not participate. I have asked that user to share their experience here, but am not certain how active they are.

To be completely open, NoCharge does not have individual user accounts. All users log in with the same username so there is an anonymity aspect to it. But the idea that it would be used as a proxy is not very realistic, as the cost of a few long distance phone calls to NoCharge could easily pay for an entire month of dialup service at a local ISP under a false name. This would be especially expensive because NoCharge runs at one half dialup speed, meaning even the smallest pages take over a minute to load in a web browser. Of course the long distance charges do not apply to people living in Seattle, which is where the service is provided. I realize that somebody may decide block NoCharge again because I was so open about this. But Wikipedia demands openness and I want to follow the Wikipedian way, regardless of the outcome, because I believe in the project and I hope others will allow us low-income people to participate.

References

• NoCharge block history (User:64.40.32.0/19)

Initial block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

• Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users

Conversation about initial block at User talk:Jpgordon

• The 64.40.32.0/19 range block
• Regarding the range block of the NoCharge ISP

Review of block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

• Review of indefinite rangeblocks

Wikipedia references

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs
• Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses
• Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths

Results hoped for
Ideally, I would like to be advised of either of the following

1. Wikipedia is trying to reduce this kind of damage, how it is doing so and what can be done in the future, or
2. This is a normal part of running Wikipedia efficiently and cannot be helped.

All comments are most welcome and greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about option 3?

This is a normal part of running Wikipedia efficiently and there are ways to deal with it

I'm sorry you had this problem, seemingly for 2.5 years. I reject, however, the notion that it is (or was) targeted at "low-income" users, unless there are diffs that support that assertion. The threads above don't seem to support that assertion. I am sorry it was preemptively done and there was no review (or at least no lifting of the block) before now. On the surface, however, it sure looks like it was at least a reasoned, if not reasonable, block. But reasoned or not, we block for vandalism, not income. And who's to say that even if vandalism spiked because of this service, that it would be because of "income level"? Maybe a block is just a block, and very often, they are for WP:VANDALISM. I'll sit back and wait for diffs on this, and I won't say anything more negative about it, but suffice to say I think it's characterized uncharitably.  Frank  |  talk  04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it looks like it was changed just over a month after it was initially placed, so that registered users could log in: [1].  Frank  |  talk  04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I inferred that it was targetted at low-income users. My intent was to say that the result of the block was that low-income users were hurt inadvertantly. I do not believe there was any malice related with the block only that the block had unintended consequences. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't imply it, you trumpeted it with the title of the thread! I'll quit beating that drum (or horse); I've made my point on that front. But still - in 2.5 years, you had no other options for editing? I've never tried editing from a range-blocked IP, but did you try to put an {{unblock}} template on its talk page? You seem to have an account, after the first month, did you try to log in? How about free internet access from a school, university, or - most likely - a library? Any friends, relatives, acquaintances with Internet access? Email to WP:ARBCOM? Email to an administrator (perhaps a different one than blocked) by going to an admin's page and clicking "Email this user"?  Frank  |  talk 

This is my mistake. I should have chosen a different title for the thread. I used a title similar to title of the first review, which was Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users. This was from the first review, a month later, when the block was changed from a hard block to a soft block as you stated. This happened when after a user contacted Jimmy Wales.

It appears that I have made several mistakes. I am a new user with only 2 months experince which is why I added the part about my ignorance to the message above. I hope you will forgive me.To answer your questions, I did not have an account at the time of the block so I could not place a tag. The account I have now was creted 2 months ago after the block was lifted. I did not try to log in from a school and I did not know what ARBCOM was until a couple of weeks ago. I did contact serveral people, but they said they could not help me because NoCharge was labeled as a proxy at that point.

I would like to state that all this is in the past and I'm just happy to be here now. I would like to focus on what we could do in the future. I just want to raise awareness of this incident so similar things can be minimized in the future. Thank you for the links. These are things I was unaware of. I appreciate your help. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, your comments seem to be a bit over the top - could you tone them down a bit please? Regarding the block, normally this would be a hard block because free dialup is essentially an open proxy. This particular block is a softblock because of the issues you mention about collateral damage. It is still possible (albeit more difficult) to get an account by sending an email, and I don't think that is an excessive barrier to entry given the potential for abuse. So as I did in the original block discussion 2.5 years ago, I'd prefer a softblock (anon only, account creation disabled) on this range as opposed to a normal hard block. Prodego ^talk 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it, but meta-discussion should probably happen elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hydroxonium - we are always glad to have productive contributors, and despite how I may have come across above, I, like most of the rest of us around here, don't like to see people driven away, especially accidentally. I think it's going to be hard to avoid similar situations in the future, but as you seemed unaware of the ideas I put forth as mitigations, perhaps others were (and are) similarly unaware. That creates an action item: if we can't change our tribal reaction to vandalism, we can certainly change (improve) the documentation describing what to do about possible collateral damage.  Frank  |  talk  05:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to let everyone know, this range has been unblocked since march of this year. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank - No worries. We're all good - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the block was lifted by Xeno per this conversation because nobody could find any vandalism from there. I don't know the rules so maybe just the possibility of vandalism, or just being labeled a proxy is enough to block. Does actual vandalism need to take place first? Could anybody clarify that?

Oh yes, Frank, you are correct, I did not realize there were all those solutions. Maybe we could educate newbies like myself a little bit better regarding all those solutions. Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also mention that (66.109.192.0/20) is also part of the NoCharge domain and that Xeno mentioned this "And on the other hand, the 66.109.192.0/20 actually showed a fairly disproportionate (from personal experience) amount of positive edits from anons when they were able to" as part of the discussion when he unblocked. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that (66.109.192.0/20) link above redirected when I clicked it, but you can type "User:66.109.192.0/20" in to the form when you get to the page and it will show it's part of NoCharge. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here. I am pleased to know that the hardblock of NoCharge has been removed, as I felt initially, and still do, that it was an egregious move that blocked access to Wikipedia for those who used the service. Putting a little backstory on NoCharge, it started out as a free ISP in Washington State, USA, for low income families and individuals, completely funded by grant money, in the late 1990s. It quickly expanded to cover the entire region known as Western Washington, in more than 40 major communities. I had been a user of NoCharge for almost six years, and began editing Wikipedia in 2005 as an anonymous user, then I registered my username Srosenow_98, with Wikipedia so that I could be a more regular and credible contributor. Two years passed without issue nor cause for alarm, until I found I could no longer contribute, much less even read an article. I couldn't even log in to my account on Wikipedia. At the time, I was working on a revision of the Gillig entry on Wikipedia as well as laying what would be the foundation for the subpages that cover their discontinued school bus product lines. Shocked and dismayed, I posted a request to remove the block on my Talk Page, which was then subsequently declined. I then accessed Wikipedia from a public library, which was more than 10 miles distant, to continue my contributions. Seeing how bad a move it was to block users of NoCharge, and after unsuccessfully appealing the decision by the blocking admin repeatedly, I took the issue to Jimmy Wales, Wikipeda's founder (yes, I was the user who contacted him). After successive discussions on the Administrator's Noticeboard, I was pleased at the end result. It should be mentioned that I no longer use NoCharge. At the time, I was living in Potlatch, Washington and during rainy weather, connection to NoCharge began to get fickle, and ultimately became unfeasable due to poor connection speeds or connections constantly dropping. Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanka very much for the imput Srosenow 98. I really appreciated getting support from a fellow (albeit former) NoCharge user. This has been a nightmare, hasn't it? - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• An ISP was blocked. It was unblocked. Nobody died. Someone demands that we admit that, for example, this block was due to bias, despite there being no actual evidence of that, the answer to which is a polite no. As far as I can tell nothing needs to change at this point? Guy (Help!) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue which jumps out to me it that the ISP was blocked (for good reasons) before vandalism from it became a problem. Given the technical limitations to this ISP as described by Hydroxonium (eg, the very slow speed) it's unlikely that it would have developed into a serious problem. The moral to the story I'm taking out of it as an admin is to take greater care with IP blocks and I'd suggest that those admins who block open proxies assess the level of vandalism and nature of the proxy (where possible) before implementing a block. I do note, however, that it's generally necessary to block open proxies, and this seems to be an unusual case. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, many other networks have the same technical limitations and can be a major pain in the ass when it comes to vandalism. I cannot assert what the vandalism level coming from that range was at that time, but I assume it was problematic if jpgordon blocked it. On the other hand, the normal process of Wikipedia is to reassess blocks from time to time, and I'm happy it is unblocked if the vandalism from there is now manageable. I surely hope that all hardblocks (heh, even all blocks) are taken seriously and that people don't hardblock an IP without looking at the technical (whois) and behavioral (traffic) details. -- Luk ^talk 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Jzg, I don't think that is Hydroxonium's intent here at all. I believe what s/he is trying to say is that barriers to entry are prima facie A Bad Thing™, and they should only be raised when a real and present problem has presented itself (not preemptively), and that blocks should be proportionate to the amount of disruption. Indefinitely blocking a range that had zero edits, and apparently no evidence of it being used for vandalism (grooming socks, etc.), was not appropriate then, and it would not be appropriate now. S/he is asking administrators to be mindful when placing blocks on anonymous users. I don't think that's unreasonable. –xeno^talk 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of your desired results, (2) seems to be the one that is applicable. I too see nothing else to discuss here, though I do of course regret that it was necessary to block some legitimate users—as it often is in these types of scenarios. AGK 12:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see that this block was performed to pre-empt a perceived danger of vandalism. I have more sympathy with this request (I did not realise this fact when making my first comment), though would note that the block was performed in 2007 (when, as Hydroxonium states, we were doing our best to keep Grawp at bay) and would almost surely not be placed today. AGK 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• We also had a big debate about open proxies since then. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are we sure it is a proxy? The OP says "Somebody mentioned that NoCharge was free and said it could possibly be used as a proxy. Once it was labeled as a proxy, it was closed as being a proxy even though it hadn't been used as such." Everyone seems to be jumping on the "proxy bandwagon", but I don't see any proof of it being an actual honest-to-God proxy. That would come from a CU. So, let's get one of those, have them check the range, and go from there. Just don't put your cart before your horse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know, it's not a proxy, and you can't use it as a proxy; you need to dial-in to access it. –xeno^talk 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, just wanted to make sure so we aren't unnecessarily labeling it as a proxy. Carry on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is by definition an open proxy (which is different than just a proxy) if anyone is allowed to connect to it for free. Which is the case (ignoring the phone charges). Neutralhomer, checkusers have absolutely zero to do with determining if an IP is a proxy, other than that it is something they frequently do. Prodego ^talk 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

By whose definition? –xeno^talk 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a traditional definition seen on this board many times before: If the IP can be used by anyone anywhere, and there's no accountability at the ISP's end to stop the abusive user using it, then it's an open proxy. The accountability is what traditionally divides any other ISP proxy from an open proxy; payment of money ("having an account") has traditionally been used as a measure of accountability. This is of course discounted by Protonk's comments immediately below, and so we should instead look at whether it's being used abusively. As Protonk also mentions, it's just not attractive for a serial vandal. Vandals use open HTTP, web proxies, and anonymity networks for convenience. If they all used dialups to rapidly switch IPs we'd think about blocking them instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So then by a very strict definition my ISP is a closed proxy. Ok. But I still believe that absent ongoing disruption, we should not block preemptively. –xeno^talk 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The types of open proxies I mentioned above (as well as some others) have a proven history of chronic abuse. They are like IP ranges in themselves, which is why pre-emptive blocks of those IPs are not actually pre-emptive. Dialup isn't something we have a particular problem with though, in general. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"and there's no accountability at the ISP's end to stop the abusive user using it" If there has been one factual claim which has been rendered vacant by wikipedia's vandalism experience, it is that traditional ISPs have an accountability function for the end users. If this is part of our mechanism for determining which service providers to treat as 'closed', we should revisit that thought process. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind me here! I'll just read the first half of a comment then respond...... *sorry* Protonk (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My general comment is that the presentation here that nocharge is nothing like what we refer to broadly as an "open proxy" is compelling. The majority of customers are local, the speed is slow and you can't connect aribtrarily many times (because you are limited by phone lines). In fact, it looks an awful lot like a traditional dial-up ISP except you don't have to pay money. Maybe in 2007 we could have convinced ourselves that forcing a user to have a set account on one end of the ISP mattered for vandalism or other reasons, but I haven't seen any evidence of that claim in my time on wikipedia. We have long term vandals and sockpuppeteers on traditional ISPs who could give a shit less that they are creating hundreds of accounts a month for nuisance reasons. My other comment is that these arguments were basically made 2.5 years ago by Srosenow 98. And they were ignored. So maybe time has softened the attitude toward range blocks in general. Or maybe we will repeat this problem. If the latter is the case, it behooves us to discuss the problem honestly here. With respect to JzG, saying "nobody died" is unhelpful. IP blocks are balancing acts between knowns and unknowns. This case should give us pause and cause us to think harder about estimating the unknowns before making long term decisions. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So for those of us who where active on admin boards in 2007 (not me), and who are still here, should reconsider those actions. Ok. Now what. Much has changed since 2007, and I don't see any real prescription for change here. I really am not sure this is the right venue for this sort of discussion either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Purpose: I want to let people know that heavy-handed decisions can have unintended consequences which include enormous collateral damage to Wikipedia's volunteers." These things still happen, and so this is a relevant topic to be brought up here. Nothing to do in this particular case, but in general there is still scope for improvement. Every cohort of adminalikes should be made to learn more about the collateral effects of admin decisions, especially long or wide-ranging IP blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Block notices, range-block templates, and interface messages related to blocks, are often created assuming people know a lot about Wikipedia. They need to be designed to also help newcomers who don't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with xeno in the sense that an expansive definition of "open proxy" should not then be an excuse to preemptively block an IP range. That's absurd. However, the argument made by the OP (and where is this argument leading by the way? Is there some end goal in mind?) is that because this service is utilized by "low income" individuals, a claim that isn't verified here, that it should receive special privileges.

That's absurd. We treat IP ranges with a dose of sanity and that generally means not blocking off wide-ranging, free, open access areas, like Starbucks or Verizon wireless for the potential of abuse, but we do block these ranges, temporarily, for actual abuse, in the least disruptive way possible. This IP range is no different. A rangeblock on any single ISP for that length of time is probably too long, but how does that translate to something relevant for us to do now? This is a complaint in need of an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• MAIN POINT - Reviewing large scale blocks is important and very much appreciated by users, as stated at the top of this thread in the "Appreciation" section.

I can see now that my message got lost in all my rambling. I was just trying to say thanks for all your work because I know you guys get critisized all the time. I just gave way, WAY too much background info. Oops. Sorry. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Current Events

An IP has edited the Current Events page of January 5, 2010. While the edit seems to be OK, I'm wondering if anyone is watchlisting these pages, and how we can prevent possible vandalism or other mischief there.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that edit, nor any reason to stop IPs from editing such pages. If vandalism proves to be a problem, we have the means to deal with it. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Just wanted to bring this to the attention of admins just in case no one would watch these pages. But if people do watch at least a significant part of these pages, then a potential vandalism problem would probably be identified.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

The {{editprotected}} category is backlogged, but most of the requests require someone with sound knowledge of templates and markup. If any admins with such knowledge would take a look, it would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Granting and removing of +accountcreator

Hi folks!

I've got a bit of a question here concerning the +accountcreator flag.

(TLDR summary: Various pages state that +accountcreator can be removed if the user is not involved with WP:ACC. However, it was granted for other purposes which are a side-effect of intended use. Should removal continue? )

From WP:RFPERM:

The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the account request process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.

Wikipedia:Account creator doesn't offer much more:

In addition, account creators (users in the 'accountcreator' user group) can override titleblacklist. The latter allows them to edit editnotices. The permission is granted to users who are active in the request-an-account process

These two pages tell me what I already know - that the accountcreator flag is given to users who participate in the WP:ACC process (usually only to users who hit the 6 account creations / day / IP address rate limit multiple times AFAIAA). However, I'm also aware that a number of users have been granted the accountcreator flag for other reasons, such as a teacher creating accounts for schoolkids[2], editnotice editing, and even one for no apparent reason. Others have the accountcreator flag because they were on ACC, but no longer are, and it hasn't been removed.

Wikipedia:Editnotice only mentions the technical capabilities of accountcreators being able to edit editnotices, not that wishing to edit editnotices is a reason for giving the flag.

Special:ListGroupRights shows that the accountcreator group has the following:

• Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
• Override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof)
• Override the title blacklist (tboverride)

The first is to allow overriding of the 6 account creations / 24 hours / IP address rate limit. The second two are to allow creation of usernames that the automatic filtering (in the form of titleblacklist and antispoof) prevent, but are actually OK for creation and subsequent use. It's a bit of a side-effect that accountcreators are also able to edit editnotices.

Am I missing something somewhere that says that users who wish to edit editnotices should get +accountcreator? If so, would it not be better to give the flag by a different name? I was about to remove the flag from a bunch of users who happen to be listed here Note: I wasn't planning on removing it from all in that list. Note 2: In that list, "Suspended" is highly likely only due to inactivity on the ACC tool. Note 3: Do I actually need to notify the users there about this thread? Seems a bit of a grey area, cos they aren't being discussed directly., but a quick bit of discussion on IRC made me realise that this is likely to only cause DRAMA, so I'm open for discussion first.

Given the statement on WP:RFPERM, I was just going to go ahead with this and remove the flags, but as I mentioned above, I think for something like this it's better to actually get a sanity check. Everything I've read (I might have missed something) seems to offer a positive sanity check, but I think another human or two is needed.

Thanks,

--[stwalkerster|talk] 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, interwiki link to toolserver page didn't parse correctly. Try this one: [3]. --[stwalkerster|talk] 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Accountcreators can, but aren't supposed to, edit editnotices. Prodego ^talk 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then on more discussion is needed. I think it should be removed, too. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the accountcreator flag should be given for that purpose and that only, this should not be handed out just because someone wants to edit editnotices. It seems to me that if an editnotice needs to be created or edited then the editor should be able to contact an admin or an accountcreator just as they would have to for page protection or editing a protected template and so forth. But handing out this flag just for editnotice use should not be done. If this suggestion is not sufficient enough then I say remove the editnotice access from the accountcreator bit. Mlpearc powwow 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should just randomly give this out to any Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks they might want to edit some editnotice. I have no problem granting it on a temporary basis to someone who needs to make a particular edit to a particular editnotice and removing it once they're done, but the only people who should have the permission on a permanent basis are those who need it for creating accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through that list and, of those who don't and didn't have access to the account creation tool, the majority seem to be alternate accounts of admins. There were 2 or 3 (including a bot) who needed title blacklist override for one reason or another, one who was granted it for editnotice editing, one who was granted ACC with no reason given in the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone shall correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 'title blacklist' also covers blacklisted names. So there may be some particular blacklisted name, where a totally innocuous name is prevented because of the rule so it requires an accountcreator to create. –xeno^talk 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much potential for this right to be abused (everything would be logged), so I don't see too much harm in giving this to someone who is interested in needing to create accounts for a school project (although students should just make their own accounts) or for someone who intends to change many editnotices. However, if they're not in the ACC project, I'd check in after a couple of weeks and ask if they still needed the right, as it wouldn't have much use afterwards. I agree that it shouldn't be given for permanent/long-term usage for anyone not involved in ACC, but it doesn't seem to have caused any harm. —fetch·comms 16:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I messed up an import

I just realised that the earliest versions of Talk:Profession were absent here but present at Nostalgia, so I imported them to Talk:Profession/Talk, moved them to Talk:Profession and deleted that page, and restored the page to complete the merge. Unfortunately, the old versions appear both where they should and in August 2010, so I had to perform a revert. Any ideas what I did wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• That looks like a pretty standard history merge, you usually have to revert to the latest new version after moving the old revisions on top (which creates a new revision with the old content) and undeleting the new ones. –xeno^talk 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh really...okay, I didn't know that such a merge would force me to revert to the latest new version, which I did shortly before posting this request for help. I thought that a properly-done merge like this would result in the old revisions appearing as old revisions only. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It does. But you effectively added further revisions, with the old content but dated today, with the page rename and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically they do, but the newest revision in the merged article is actually the one with the log entry of you moving it from the Talk:Profession/Talk to Talk:Profession. –xeno^talk 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Curious, is it possible to tell it to import from page title X to page title Y? I would have imported to Talk:Profession, but somehow it imported to Talk:Profession/Talk, when I would have expected it to go to Profession/Talk. Last time that I did an import, the article ended up in mainspace, but I wanted it in userspace because it was an import from de:wp; however, I didn't seem to have any options other than mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is possible to select the namespace, and you may have done that accidentally. If you select "all" as the namespace, it will import into the main namespace.

Additionally, this diff shows a duplicate edit. Edits with the exact same timestamp cannot be separated; this should change when revision move is enabled on Wikipedia.

The fact that you had some old revisions from 2001 shown as August 2010 edits is an artifact of the method you used for history merging. If you had imported the page, moved the talk page over the newly imported page, restored the needed edits, then moved the page back, you would not have had that problem. That's the second method described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves; it doesn't add as many redundant edits to the history as the first one. Graham87 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started a related thread at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Which history merge method should be used? Graham87 08:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Copyrighted Material

I apologise if this is not the right place to ask this question; but here goes anyway. I created a mathematics article: Poincaré complex. This article consisted primarily of definitions. The article was tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-G12}}. I placed a {{hangon}} template at the top of the page and made two posts on the page's talk page; one of which was to ask what I should do to avoid the article being speedy deleted, i.e. how to stop it infringing copyright. An user:Fastily came and deleted the article without entering into any discussion on the talk page. My point was this: the article was made up of mathematical definitions; these cannot be subject to copyright. I did not assume authorship of the material and referenced everything meticulous. The webpage that I based my article on was itself based on two academic papers (both of which I references). I guess I have two questions:

1. Was it okay for user:Fastily to delete the article within a few seconds despite the {{hangon}} template and my requests for help on the helpdesk and the article's talk page?
2. If I want to included mathematical definitions that already exist in published works then how do I avoid copyright infringement?

— Fly by Night (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to a similar post on my talk page at User_talk:Fastily#Poincar.C3.A9_Complex. Look forward to hearing what others have to say. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please see [4] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to cite this as clear evidence of my bad intentions ([5]); but I was simply being honest and asking for clarification. I still don't understand how a definition can be subject to copyright.— Fly by Night (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that Fastily has a tendency to use his tools in in a haphazard fashion and bites newcomers far too often. His response frequency has increased after the last complaint, but so too has the frequency of canned, unhelpful responses. An RFC/U is probably the next step.

The copyright question (whether a mathematical proof can be copyrighted) is probably best discussed at WP:MCQ. –xeno^talk 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why, it almost seems like hounding xeno. Why is it that you are always so quick to assume bad faith and make such harsh comments? I know we've disagreed in the past but I hardly think I deserve this kind of brash treatment at every turn. To be quite frank, I'm rather saddened by what I'm seeing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was similarly saddened to see good-faith user User talk:Danilo Hegg indefinitely blocked for "Repeated Vandalism", when he was acting in good faith. A short 15 minute block with a note about acceptable additions would've been more appropriate. AGF is a two-way street. If someone asks for help, stop to help and explain what you are doing before pulling out the tools. –xeno^talk 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Identifying the line where a mathematical formula becomes not copyrightable is a massive headache for me (I do a lot with copyright on Wikipedia, but not much with higher maths), but in this case a formula alone was not the problem. For example, your article included the following:

Poincaré showed that the homology groups of a manifold satisfy a certain relation (the Poincaré duality isomorphism). A Poincaré complex is a space where this isomorphism is taken as an axiom (see also Poincaré space).

Those reviewing the source will find that text familiar. You copied additional text from that source as well. "2 + 2 = 4" is not copyrightable, but you cannot copy large chunks of explication from copyrighted sources. You may use brief excerpts, properly marked, in accordance with WP:NFC, but most text you include here needs to be written completely by you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the source and the deleted page, it looks close enough that it should have been blanked and gone to Copyright Problems. But calling it a borderline G12 is being generous. The speedy should have been declined and a longer term process should have been used. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Personal attack on sodabottle' s User talk & Requesting Strict Action on Mona1978

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. Take to ANI next time. Shadowjams (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In an Kerala state related discussion, Mona1978 has used extremely abusive & defamatory words on User:Sodabottle's Talk Page. Following are the abusive words used by the User:Mona1978.
Do just that and dare not ever think that Munnar WILL EVER go to Toilet-Nadu. Toilet-Nadu will go the way of Pirabhakaram and LTTE before that ever happens.
These same Mallus welcomed your gr8 Tamil brothers when they came wagging their tails from Toilet-Nadu a few generations back. MOST people in Munnar speak Malayalam and will continue to do so. Tamils there clean latrines and toilets and do not go to school.

He is referring Tamil Nadu as Toilet-Nadu. I request WP:Administrators to take strict action to block the Mona1978 for abusing Tamil people's sentiments & for the personal attack at User:Sodabottle's talk page.

---

Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 09:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, in keeping with my general habbit of blocking on site users whose first edit is to hurl personal attacks at a specific editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine Someguy1221!. That will help us to keep the serious vandals away from our wikipedia. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 10:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:George McFinnigan ie at article Spain

Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George McFinnigan ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]
• 3rd revert: [8]
• 4th revert: [9]
• 5th revert: [10]
• 6th revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12], [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [15], [16], [17], also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption [18], replacing Ourense with Orense [19], there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I have moved this here as a report at WP:3RR was declined. I consider this users behaviour to be contentious and disruptive and they refuse to discuss proposed edits at teh artcile talk page as requested. Examination of User talk:George McFinnigan ie show similar behaviour on other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved back here as it was archived without (apparently) attention from an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be better off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.10 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Disambig Link In Order to Make Findable an Otherwise COMPLETELY Unfindable Template

So, I'm looking for the Wikipedia article on Nausea and see a {{so?}} tag after something. Especially given that the "discuss" link of that tag leads to nothing -- meaning the author who placed the tag never started a corresponding talk page discussion -- I decide to remove it. But I want to check to see if {{so?}} has any documentation before doing that -- so I decide to pop over to that page.

So I type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:so?" into my browser. Without me noticing, the browser drops the question mark (thanks to URL parsing), it goes to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:so", which redirects to Template:uw-soablock.

So I start looking for the template tag. Both searches using Wikipedia's search engine, and Google searches like site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:template "so?" and site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:template "relevant" don't yield it anywhere.

Finally, eureka, I realize the source of problem, hop over to URL Encoder/Decoder, get the "%3F" for a question mark, and end up at Template:so?.

Suggestion is to add a disambig link to Template:uw-soablock for Template:so?, since the technicalities of how a browser parses URLs means that Template:so? is fairly unlocatable otherwise -- and this way, people arriving at Template:uw-soablock from a search for Template:so would quickly find their desired result. ;-) WCityMike 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that {{so?}} is 'unfindable'. I stuck Template:so? into the Wikipedia search box and was very promptly redirected to Template:Off-topic? Is there really a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.10 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be pretty much the only way to find it. Given that that may be the one successful way of finding it amidst a few hundred other dead ends, would a disambig link on Template:uw-soablock be that problematic? WCityMike 19:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Polska toolserver blocked (within 94.23.0.0/16)

Wikimedia Polska is operating a toolserver that uses the 94.23.242.48 IP address. Unfortunately, this is within the OVH address block that is currently hardblocked on enwiki.

Bot operators (in this case mostly interwiki) cannot update enwiki pages because of that.

We've had the same problem on plwiki, and we have solved this by breaking this block into smaller ones:

1. 94.23.243.0/24
2. 94.23.240.0/23
3. 94.23.244.0/22
4. 94.23.248.0/21
5. 94.23.224.0/20
6. 94.23.192.0/19
7. 94.23.128.0/18
8. 94.23.0.0/17

Could this block be also changed on English Wikipedia?

 « Saper // @talk »  20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)