:::Whatever works for you. It took me 15 minutes just to wikifomat the list from the checkuser output so I could post it. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Whatever works for you. It took me 15 minutes just to wikifomat the list from the checkuser output so I could post it. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, done. One section was already blocked in March by [[User:John Reaves|John Reaves]], so I'll work through the others. Is there a puppetmaster I should tag each page with, or just the usual template? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, done. One section was already blocked in March by [[User:John Reaves|John Reaves]], so I'll work through the others. Is there a puppetmaster I should tag each page with, or just the usual template? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
== Pseudoscience and alternative science ==
I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.]]. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fuck WP:DENY, we have a serious problem here. I don't want my watchlist looking like this every day:
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Akrotiri and Dhekelia' (and the only contributor was 'B'))
(Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia over redirect (vandalism)
(Deletion log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) deleted "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6))
(Move log); 11:27 . . B (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (vandalism)
(Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia to Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
(Move log); 11:04 . . Heaðobards (Talk | contribs) moved Akrotiri and Dhekelia to HAGGEЯ?(spaces) (for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
(diff) (hist) . . m List of incomplete Doctor Who serials; 10:33 . . (+1) . . Moochocoogle (Talk | contribs) (→Third Doctor)
(diff) (hist) . . Max Mosley; 10:16 . . (-321) . . 4u1e (Talk | contribs) (trim lead per template. Article is 35k+ characters, for which WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs)
(Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
(Deletion log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) deleted "HAGGEЯ?(spaces)" (content was: '#REDIRECT Star Wars' (and the only contributor was 'Luna Santin'))
(Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Talk:Star Wars over redirect (revert)
(Move log); 10:09 . . Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) moved HAGGEЯ?(spaces) to Star Wars over redirect (revert)
(Move log); 09:52 . . Gifðas (Talk | contribs) moved Star Wars to HAGGEЯ?(spaces)(for grеat juѕtice аnd еpiс lulz; аlsο, gο tο (redact) [а muѕt-ѕее])
We've got several problems here:
It took nearly twenty minutes for admins to fix serious vandalism on the article for Star Wars
It is very easy for sleeper attacks (two in an hour, and my watchlist is rather small - 200 items including most of my images, and some wikiprojects and noticeboards)
So think. What's the best way of fixing this? We could implement an edit requirement on moves - it's one line of code, IIRC. But we really need to stop Grawp. Sceptre(talk)21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I would support adding even a minimal edit count restriction on autoconfirm. This would cut down on sleeper socks used to edit semi-protected pages as well. Also of interest is a quick script I wrote to auto-revert pagemoves, User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js. It adds a "revert all" tab when viewing a move log. I'm still working on a version that will also delete the redirects created. Also, it isn't very tested (I used it once) but it should work. If you use it, make sure to turn off "Add pages I move to my watchlist" or your watchlist will look like this when you are done. Mr.Z-man21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the hard way is to convince a developer to program a feature that would block any page move that involves "HAG" as part of the move, then again that seems like a lot of unneded work and we don't want to give him bragging rights for his stupidity, so what is left? - Caribbean~H.Q.21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that such a solution would have unintended negative side effects. I do support a minimum edit count before autoconfirming, though. —Travistalk21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was proposed earlier for another form of semi protection to protect against sleeper vandalism-only accounts, at one time dubbed quasi protection. It was shot down originally due to wasting so much time since admins would have had to confirm each account. Then it was proposed again when the software was updated so that it would automatically be confirmed after x amount of edits. I don't think that proposal gained enough consensus for it to be implemented. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3xec)I bumped up the priority of SpamRegex request, which will enable us to blacklist things (like "HAGGER" and all its possible variants in one regex) just about wherever people can type them - page titles, move fields, edit summaries, log entries, usernames; you name it, it's blocked. All they have to do is install it, and Grawp's sunk. Sure he can keep being annoying, but we won't know it's him without the trademark "hagger" string, and where's the fun in that? Happy‑melon21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a throttle then, 1 page move per minute till a user have 100 edits? Or some form of captcha for page moves for editors with under 100 edits. MBisanztalk23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just limit moves to non-admins and non-flagged bots to 1 every 5 minutes? How often does any non-bot or non-admin really need to move a page...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
300 seconds is a long time to wait. In November of 2006 for example I moved pages quite a bit faster than that, and for legitimate reasons. Maybe you meant 5 every 1 minute? — CharlotteWebb23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I've contacted Mike Godwin and asked for the release of Grawp's IP. I've yet to get a response but once I do we may be a step closer to getting his ISP to track him down in real life. Also it may be worth mentioning that a bugzilla request was made for an "extension spam regex" which would allow for the blacklisting of content in edit summaries. This request may have already gone through, as Grawp is now modifying the content of his edit summaries.--UrbanRose02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikey is a very busy guy, no need to bother him. It is already public knowledge that this twat is editing from various IPs in the 71.107.128.0/18 range (71.107.128.0 to 71.107.191.255), though there are probably others. — CharlotteWebb03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Grawp might use a botnet so tracing his IPs might just get a compromised computer. I read here once some vandal did that and I don't know if it was Grawp or not. William Ortiz (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say why you think that? If need be, e-mail me to avoid WP:BEANS. Even if all we get is a zombie computer, it should be reported, so it can be cleaned out. Either way, we catch something. And if it is compromised by Grawp, checking the logs on there might give us more information about him. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:FICT got moved to a Hagger title. Why are we sitting around doing nothing? We should, at the very least, move-protect all guidelines and policies - there's no earthly reason why they should be moved anyway. Sceptre(talk)09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong told me that a lot of the recent accounts were sleeper socks that were really old. By looking at them most haven't contributed for 3 months to a year. William Ortiz (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His stupidity has been showing up on my watchlist almost every day on this week, the socks are living too long for my taste and are being able to move a lot of pages before being smashed with the banhammer, thus I respectfully disagree that we have him under control. - Caribbean~H.Q.00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at this again I would tend to think that we need some minimum edit count before becoming autoconfirmed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I recognized some of those. He (or someone else) regularly spams /b/ on 4chan with urls to do these type of operations hoping someone accidentally (or intentionally) clicks on them. The reason I suspect it is the same person is the aforementioned urls provide the same comments in the &wpSummary= field when he posts them. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Caribbean H.Q. and Stifle above, I'm not sure Grawp is under control. My watchlist has been frequently cluttered by this silly nonsense. I do think a minimum edit count for autoconfirmation would help make life harder for sleeper sock farms without causing much collateral damage. 100 edits? - Neparis (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a solution that would virtually put and end to vandalism, sockpuppetry, and the countless hours of our lives that we spend reverting and blocking it: Require account creation and a confirmed ISP email address. I'm not here to start another argument over whether or not account creation should be required. I know that the Meta states that one of Wikipedia's core principles and one that should virtually be beyond debate is that account creation shouldn't be required. I'm just stating the reason why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. Would it mean to fewer fly by typo corrections? Yes. Would it mean some users would stop contributing to Wikipedia? Yes. Would it put a total end to vandalism? No. But it won't deter dedicated users from contributing to the encyclopedia. And that's how the majority of good articles in this encyclopedia got to be what they are today. They were written by a (relatively) few dedicated users who make large contributions, not by many contributors making small contributions over a great period of time. I don't have the statistics which prove this, but it is my strong belief that this is what such statistics will show. For more information, see my userpage on Encyclopedia Dramatica (User:UR) (the image and caption on the page were not put there by me) or my upcoming post at Wikipedia review. (I originally created an account on ED to try to get them to remove stuff about me from an article but ended up realizing that I might as well be editing the site than putting up with this nonsense that is vandalism). If you disagree with me, just ignore this, I'm not here to argue. This is probably going to be my last post for a long while. Until the administration makes these changes, I just can't see any reason to continue here. I may occasionally make edits to actual articles, but I've had enough of reverting edits by schoolkids, sociopaths and autistics to articles I didn't even write.--UrbanRose22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm changing my opinion and saying that just any email address will do, though this would mean that dedicated sockpuppeteers would still be able to vandalize by creating multiple email accounts. Though I agree that if there are people who don't have ISP email addresses, it wouldn't be beneficial to stop them from editing.--UrbanRose02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though it may be productive to come up with precautionary measures to combat these serial vandal page moves; vandalism is a problem that will always exist on Wikipedia. In a sense these blatant forms of it are move desirable (if you could call vandalism desirable), since they are easier to detect. The more sinister forms of vandalism are the ones that come from accounts that insert microscopic errors which may not be discovered for months. Also, we have a million Grawps that visit our site on a regular basis, so in my opinion this Grawp ain't that unique and really shouldn't be glorified in this manner. Basically you can sum up my opinion with these lyrics from a great Beatle's song..."Let it be, let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be." Whispers: "Let 'em be" to wallow away as we RBI 'em out and continue building an encyclopedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)02:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these "Grawp" threads are glorifying him and this time I didn't create it. And I'm not retiring from vandal fighting because of Grawp. It's because of vandals in general. True if my proposal was implemented, vandals would still exist, but in such small numbers that people wouldn't have to spend hours a day browsing recent changes just to keep their encyclopedia intact. The countless hours that are spent on this is just ridiculous when it could virtually be eliminated by just two simple measures. Sadly, as Wikipedia (falsely, in my opinion) believes that allowing users to edit the site without registering is what is responsible for its greatness (which would be much more so if this was implemented), it isn't likely that this is going to happen any time soon. I also forgot to mention that I am for users being allowed to make anonymous practice edits to the sandbox or Wikipedia:Introduction, but allowing anonymous edits to the whole encyclopedia is the reason that vandalism is so rampant, and is a reason that many legitimate editors who care about Wikipedia are getting tired of having to put up with it and choosing to leave.--UrbanRose02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on it. Also, that user would have probably gotten past the autoconfirmed limit (it has several hundred edits). The main "autoconfirmed" issue is that these sleepers have no edits; but this one does, as have several others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably VPP first - technically it's an absolute doddle to enact (one line in the right config file by someone with shell access). Get support from VPP then either file a bug request yourself or ask someone who regulars at VPT to do it. Happy‑melon09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been doing that lately, too. Lar is working on things. He has checkuser both here and there, so we may be rid of Grawp, once we can narrow down his editing range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WMF Logos
This is being cross-posted from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#WMF_Logos on request for greater visability. Images like Image:Wikimedia.png are non-free copyrighted images owned by the WMF that should only be used per FUR guidelines. I think we should comment their use out of all userpages that have them as fairuse overuse. This is because all page of wikipedia, including user pages, should be non-free compliant. While it may not be a legal problem directly, for all the sites that scrape our database, their violating the copyright when they republish a userpage with the logo. Also, someone could argue trademark dilution if the logo is slapped willy-nilly on every user page. Any objections to commenting them out?. MBisanztalk
I object, largely on the basis that I see this as more paranoia than factually-driven. Has anyone from the Foundation voiced an opinion on the matter? EVula// talk // ☯ //21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF position from the last time I raised this question (~6 months ago, if I recall correctly), is that they have no official position. Or to put it more plainly they have not granted any license or permission for any generic third party use of their copyrights and trademarks within or outside of Wikipedia. At the same time, they are aware of these uses and have not taken any explicit action to generically restrict or remove the unathorized use of their copyrights and trademarks within Wikipedia. (Though it is worth noting that they have removed a few specific examples of infringing uses in the past.) So you can read into that whatever you want. MBisanz is basically correct that in the absense of an authorizing license, all of these uses created by Wikipedians represent acts of copyright/trademark infringment both within Wikipedia and for reusers. However, the WMF is obviously in a position to snuff this out even without legal action, should they choose to do so. I've been advocating for an official WMF Logo use policy for nigh on 2 years now, but it seems little progress has been made. Personally, my feeling is that under the current situation they are plainly unfree and purely decorative uses of WMF logos should be restricted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) MB[reply]
Echoing Dragon flight, I just checked my userpage, I have 5 violating images on it, 4 just through using userboxes with copyrighted images. If you want to look at it another way, were the WMF to sue an outsider for using the logo as a trademark violation, the outsider user would have an easy time convincing people that the trademark was already diluted beyond repair through our overuse, so reallyyou could think of it that we're hurting the foundation by overusing them to this extent. MBisanztalk21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EVula, I understand your concerns, but so far I haven't found a statement giving permission for re-use on en-wiki userpages. Could someone check OTRS-permissions? MBisanztalk21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, if we don't have legal permission to use the logos, then I think we ought to err on the side of caution. I don't mind if their used on say a policy page or that sort of thing, but using it on welcome templates is to me, overuse, considering its not critical to see that logo to understand how to use WP or what the WMF is. MBisanztalk21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should worry ourselves excessively over what other websites do; we have pathetically little influence over websites that aren't hosted by the Foundation. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should worry about distributing "free" content that is in fact unfree. That's the situtation we often create by embedding WMF logos in things. In my opinion, if the logo isn't actually important to the topic being discussed we would probably be better off to do without it. Dragons flight (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear folks, our trademark lawyers (outside counsel) advise us not to approve the use of our trademarks outside official Foundation activities or projects. There are good reasons for this -- one of them is the purpose of trademark law itself, which is to prevent marketplace confusion. Another is that we don't want a symbol of affiliation that might signal to litigious people that you're responsible for what we do, or that we're responsible for what you do. So, we're asking people not to use the trademarks (either the graphic or the word mark), although of course you can engage in "nominative fair use," aka "nominative use." (There's a good article on the subject on en.wiki.) 69.17.48.227MikeGodwin (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion for a long time is that we shouldn't use these. If the WMF releases another logo with a free copyright license, we can use that. Until then, it's hypocritical for us to speak for free content while not walking the walk. (And, it's absurd that a screenshot of our main page has to be classified as nonfree.) Perhaps we can have a competition for a free Wikipedia logo? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to give some size to the issue, there are over 500 uses of the less popular WMF logo and over 500 of the WP globe logo, I suspect their placement on certain high use templates means the actual number is in the tens to hundreds of thousands. I took Mike's advice and looked at Nominative use. I'd say that by placing the logos on the Welcome tempaltes and on userboxen we run into problems relating to:
2. The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol) 3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.
When we welcome a user, we are welcoming them as another user, not on behalf of WMF or the project it owns, Wikipedia. Also, in userboxes I don't think a logo is necessary to identify that I have a WMF issued global account. Carl brings up some good ideas, but I'd say that until we find some artistic talent, at least killing them off the Templates and userpages would be a good start. MBisanztalk23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been debated time and time again. This is really a discussion for WP:NFC and not WP:AN. The basic gist is that we don't have a problem with using these copyrighted logos because we are using them for the operation of Wikipedia, and in limited fashion. WP:CVU used to have official logos, and those were removed. No big deal. If we need to evaluate some situations, ok, but a total ban for meta space is absurd and entirely unnecessary. -- Ned Scott10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin says, above, that we should treat these as fair use images. NFCC is clear that fair use images shouldn't be used except in namespace 0. I think that is a quite compelling argument for removing them from other namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary - as the foundation fails to protect their copyright/trademark, it loses value and enforcability. WilyD12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For perspective, the main Wikipedia globe is used on 43,000 talk, user, and user talk pages. Thats one of 100 images being targeted by this proposed bot function. MBisanztalk21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let me get this straight. Various people have suggested, for years, that we follow our own fair use guidelines with regards to the WMF logos. Various people have responded, that since the WMF was unlikely to sue itself, the present practices could continue until the legal team said to stop. And when asked for their official position, the foundation replied by telling us that their official position consisted of not having an official position at all. So things continued. Now, 7 years after the project starts, when the legal team finally decides to consult their (undoubtedly overpriced) "outside counsel" on copyright affairs, they tell them that in fact there is no particular reason to continue to ignore common sense and trash our copyright in this manner. And now, years after this issue was first raised, we finally get our answer: No using the WMF logos on user pages. Now of course it is up to us to waste yet more foundation resources making tens (hundreds?) of thousands of edits to fix it. All because they decided to leave us hanging for this long. And no one is even remotely worried about the fact that this is the star team of lawyers upon whom we daily rely to protect us from potential lawsuits with the use of an outdated copyright law used out of the context for which it was originally intended? If I got any of this wrong, please tell me. I would like very much for this sudden worry at the long-term viability of this website to be unfounded.--Dycedargж22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be simple enough to code a bot to do the removing. But yes, it's a legacy of the carefree days of Wikipedia's youth when nobody gave a shit about these issues, because the "brand" was worthless and nobody have ever heard of the place. WilyD22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no rush to complete this task, and frankly, a lot of this discussion seems as though there's a pressing need to have these images removed as soon as humanly possible. The reality is that these images have been used for years, and removing them should only be done with care. Personally, I think some of the uses of the WMF logo are blatantly trivial (welcome templates, etc.). However, simply disabling the images (prepending the Image code with a colon) is a bad idea. The image should either be replaced or removed altogether. But I will say again that there isn't a need to have all of this done by the end of the day, or by the end of this week, or even by the end of May. If the community spends a week or two discussing this, nothing is lost. (And perhaps as Carl suggested, we could have a contest to create a free alternative.) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright holder can allow a specific person or organization or group or class to use their images in a specific way. The WMF said that the community should decide how to handle this. That means, by my interpretation, that if we decide to allow the use of WMF images anywhere within wikipedia, that this is allowed by their permission, because the community decides it. So why not make this simple and just decide it's quite okay, and just move on to other important issues? Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have fundementally misunderstood. See my comment below. I believe the "decision" to make now is how to go about resolving the issue by reducing the inappropriate uses, but that simply deciding to keep them is not an option because as evidenced by Mike Godwin above the WMF does not approve that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One would think that they would allow the use of their own logo on their own websites. Otherwise, they'd have to be removed off of every single page on every single project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry makes a very good point. If they let the community decide, let's just decide to keep it and get it over with. Without going through the trouble of making a bot, ruining the looks of many userpages, etc, why not just let them be? Even if it's copyrighted, we keep saying that a logo is no allowed on its own site. Soxred93 (ut)01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think letting the community decide to keep them was an option. Look at the statement by Mike Godwin, the WMF general counsel, above: "we're asking people not to use the trademarks...". That seems pretty plain to me. I believe what was intended is that we, the community, can decide how we deal with phasing them out, but not that we have the option to decide to keep them indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless of the rest, "nonfree", even "nonfree with permission to use on Wikipedia", is not acceptable in userspace. Only free images may be used in userspace. The Wikimedia logos are nonfree, so they're no more acceptable than, say, the Nike logo would be. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about Nike's website? I believe the intended point was that they consider the Wikimedia logo to be no more acceptable than the Nike logo in userspace on Wikipedia... --Onorem♠Dil02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Nike" was a typo for "Mike". -- 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the official logos from a number of pages, both in article and in meta space. There's no reason we can't calmly assess different uses of the logos and slowly roll out changes as needed. We certainly don't need a total ban, and we certainly don't need to put the entire community into a panic. We've got several graphics that can easily be replaced, and rather quickly in our highest use templates, without much controversy. We've got commons:Image:Wiki letter w.svg (more in commons:Category:Wikipedia puzzle piece icons) and tons more.
Once we hit up the high use templates and such, we probably won't even need to touch the individual uses. We'll have taken care of most of the problem with the templates. -- Ned Scott02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should've cross posted. ZScout370 is going to try and get an on-wiki statement from Mike, but suffice it to say, his email makes it clear that WMF logos may be used in any userspace of the project. MBisanztalk04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, yes, we can use them all we like. However, we should take care to keep them out of the article space whenever possible because they are still non-free. —Remember the dot(talk)06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are usable on the userspace, then it's clear that we can use them in any space necessary. They're only not-free to non-Wikimedia entities. Unless they need to qualify for fair use rationales (while being on the Commons), then they're free to use in the article space without any sort of justification (I would assume).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for an image to be non-free to one group and free to another. These images are non-free, full stop, and we have to tag them as such to avoid misleading others. Personally, I don't see why we should waive the NFCC criteria for them. I think we should simply make a free logo and stop using the WMF's logo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's what we did to create the WMF logo. Then the author signed over the copyright to the foundation. The reason the WMF doesn't release their logos under the GFDL or CC or some other free license, is purely to prevent impersonation or brand-identity issues - if it's clear that a site is trying to directly impersonate wikipedia, the WMF can take them to court for misuse of the logos, trademarked phrases, etc. I'd argue that, far from being trademark dilution, using the WMF logos around wikimedia actually reinforces their use as a brand image. Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but Mike Godwin and co are lawyers, and they've said that we can use the WMF logos freely outside the mainspace; so that's what we'll do (actually, keep doing:D). It'd be nice to get a full and formal statement in writing into OTRS or a mailing list archive, but the message is clear. There's precious little to gain from arguing that the legal expertise of any or all of wikipedia's users is more significant than that of its legal counsels, because that's simply not the case. Happy‑melon12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really concerned whether the foundation gives us permission to use the images. My opinion, based on our mission for free content, is that we should not be using a non-free logo on our main page or on user pages. We don't accept other nonfree images "with permission" and we shouldn't accept these either. So I'm not very concerned about brand identity. I am interested to see Mike Godwin's actual comments, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also waiting for clarity from Mike or someone else with the WMF, but if the response amounts to: "Wikipedians can you these on Wikipedia, but they are unfree everywhere else", then I largely agree with Carl. The inclusion of unfree images in the free encyclopedia is potentially a giant "gotcha" for reusers, and we should limit these unfree images in much the same way we restrict other unfree images, i.e. to what is useful and necessary, and exclude things that are frivilous and purely decorative. Dragons flight (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry is 100% spot on. I'll tell you what is frivolous, these absurd concerns about nothing. There is no gotcha. The rational solution is not to distribute non-article related space. Why the heck does anyone need meta-related stuff? Obviously, the user accounts don't get distributed, so why the userpages? Once again, this is nothing more than worrying for the sake of worrying by people making Stallman-esque arguments about theoretical freedom. Even if we are to be concerned about theoretical freedom, it doesn't matter since userspace is not article space, thus it doesn't directly impact the mission of the encyclopedia. Someone needs to close this as "unneeded drama." --Dragon695 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we make more free content available? A retreat from free-content seems a bad way for Wikipedia to progress. Don't forget that the aim of the project is to create a free encyclopaedia, not just an encyclopaedia. It is bad practice to shy away, in any fashion, from open-source and free-content principles. Sam Korn(smoddy)11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophically we should be aiming to include as little non-free content as possible. Yes, it's probably true that we don't have to -- but we really should. That dictum is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. There aren't legal issues here, and it's pretty asinine to suggest there are. But freedom should be an object wherever possible not least because it is good practice to emphasise freedom of content -- and it is similarly asinine to suggest there is an over-riding consideration of any type that would merit ignoring that principle. Sam Korn(smoddy)20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are these images nonfree? Then they don't belong on userpages. There is no drama. I'm not sure I'm ok with all of this "Let's just ignore the pesky NFCC policy" attitude. --Kbdank7120:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are, under any definition of the term, "non-free". They have precisely the status of all those "Wikipedia-only" images we used to have and (rightly) got rid of. Sam Korn(smoddy)20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not free, yes. But it's only not free to non-Wikimedia entities. The template on the Commons now clearly states that "Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission, except for use on any page of a Wikimedia Foundation project" (their emphasis, not mine). Clearly, the Wikimedia copyright is not being negatively affected by having their logo in the default viewing schema of all of their main projects. Y'all are way too paranoid about the freeness of this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that userspace is not mirrored. And nobody could argue that because WMF allows use of its logos on its own websites that it has allowed dilution of its trademark status and therfore can't litigate against people who try to use it to imitate WMF or otherwise damage WMF's interests. So there really is nothing more to worry about here. No more need for copyright paranoia and much-ado-about-nothing wikidrama. So please, let's just close this thread as a waste of time and space. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a lot of people are forgetting that userspace is not mirrored. Since the logo is on every page anyway (at least on monobook), then I don't see a reason why it should be barred from userpages. As it goes, surely if we remove it from userpages we should remove the logo from the top left of userpages too? That would be just going much, much too far. aseninet/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and Jerry are simply mistaken about the mirroring. We do distribute dumps that include userspace (and in fact all namespaces). Reusers can choose not to use that information, but some do, and {{userpage}} (for example), exists in recognition that userpages also get mirrored on non-Wikimedia sites. In answer to Asenine, the only elements that aren't mirrored in database dumps are user interface elements such as logos in the upper right, so those are perhaps the only bit that can be considered irrelevant to that consideration. Dragons flight (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism only accounts
Moved from WT:AIV to request wider input.
I am encountering more and more instances were vandals are being reported, and blocked, as "vandalism only accounts" when they have made a handful of edits. In many cases these accounts have not being properly warned. There seems to be a number of users and admin who have interpreted "vandalism only account" to include any account where all the edits are vandalism even if the total number of edits is only a handful, and consider this grounds circumventing the usual warning escalation process. Of course, the problem with this is that the initial contributions of almost every new vandal are all vandalism, so fall under the "vandalism only account" definition and the warning circumvention. It would be useful to get other opinions :on this. TigerShark (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly an issue I see. Too many RC patrollers use descriptions such as "vandslism after final warning", "vandalism only account", and "vandalism directly after release of a block." Now, sometimes, this may be true, but it appears the current thought by RC patrollers is that using these sort of descriptions may automatically be blocked by admins. Giving false or misleading comments in an effort just to get a user/IP blocked, is serious. If it's true, I'm all for it. But if it's just an effort to get a block, then I'm against it. Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk)23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my response to TigerShark at their talkpage; sometimes there are factors that are not apparent in dry text. For instance, it is now the weekend - in the UK it is early Sunday morning and in the US it is late afternoon to mid evening. It is Saturday night and young people are getting on the internet and having fun, and some may be minded to vandalise a top 10 site which allows anonymous editing... a string of vandal edits across a diverse range of subjects (no non subject areas, just the articles) can be indicative of someone who is up for teh lulz only. Vandal fighters (reporters and admins alike) sometimes get a sense of who is editing with no intent to ever contributing usefully, and it can be frustrating to have to allow someone to prove beyond all doubt that they are only here to disrupt before acting. Do we (and I specifically mean the admins who act) ever get it wrong? Surely, yes, but hopefully we are right so much more often to have a big net gain to the encyclopedia.
That said, earlier I was declining most reports and my last block before this comment was to a school ip regarding vandalism that was some time ago... for 24 hours... it will have expired before school re-opens on Monday...
I will look at the contribs and warnings of any account before I block it, regardless of what the RC patroller has written. However, I will happily also block accounts with only a few edits, and few warnings if it is clear that they are only here to vandalise. It's a balance. Black Kite23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Black Kite here - if an account has only caused vandalism, and they've had sufficient warning, I see no reason not to give an indefinite block. After all, if the user wants to contribute seriously at a future date, they can create a new account once the autoblock has expired. — Tivedshambo (t/c)07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, because BlackKite mentions them having had some warnings. Don't get me wrong, if an account vandalises after a couple of warnings (including some form of final warning), then I would completely agree with a block (initially of 24 hours) - even if they had made only 3-4 edits. The issue is bypassing the warning escalation and the block escalation, by using the "vandalism only account" definition because those 3-4 edits were the account's only contributions. TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far. Just to clarify, the issue I am raising here is that the warning escalation process is often being ignored because all of an account's edits are vandalism, even if it is only half a dozen in a short period of time. It is also correct that such accounts are getting indef blocked. There are good reasons why we have the escalation process for warnings and also for extending blocks for repeat offenders (rather than going straight to an indef block) - as pointed out above, an indef blocked user is only actually autoblocked for 24 hours anyway (vandal or otherwise). My main concern is that we seem to be significantly circumventing policy and usual practice by use of the "vandalism only account" definition. It would perhaps not be too bad if the definition covered the occassional account, but the issue here is that it seems to cover almost every single new vandal/test account because the first few edits by almost every new vandalism account are vandalism/tests. If we start blocking these without the usual warning escalation and start blocking them indefinitely, then we are pretty much doing that for every vandal account - which, I would suggest, is a very significant change to policy/practice - not one that I completely disagree with, but one that should be discussed. Looking forward to any further thoughts. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally will only block a user at AIV if: They've had a level 4 warning and continued to vandalize past that, OR it's an account (not an IP) that very clearly isn't here to help - repeated creation of nonsense/attack pages, long string of vandalism that goes faster than we can revert, etc. If they don't meet one of these two, I leave an {{AIV}} comment. I have, too, noticed that admins have been a little too trigger happy of late. Just today, an IP had been given only two real warnings and a "that was your third vandal edit, I'm reporting you" and was blocked. IP's definitely need at least three warnings before we block them, unless there's an extensive history of vandalism, which in this case the block log was empty. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest to having seen this, too. I personally am pretty strict when reporting vandals, but I will rarely start at anything higher than a level two warning. I'll only start at a level three warning if there have been several instances of blatant vandalism that was reverted without warning, or if the vandalism is particularly serious. Only in extreme cases would I ever give an only warning. In fact, I've only ever done that with this user, who made a personal attack (against a person with an identity disclosed in the edit) that required oversight.
But what I'm getting at here is that I, for pretty much 99% of cases, follow warning escalation. This is, in my interpretation, the correct way to go about things. — scetoaux(T|C)01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember from when I first became an admin, I followed the example of many other administrators who would indef-block a newly created account if their only edits were vandalism, and if they had been warned that what they were doing was wrong, and then continued. Lots of new users make testing edits... some make semi-innocuous ones, and others make more vandlism-like edits. Once they've made their first tests, though, and if they've been warned that you can't do that on Wikipedia, I remember pretty consistently seeing that if the behaviour continued, they would be indefinitly blocked. Perhaps we are not assuming good faith in them, but if someone truly makes a few first test edits that are vandalism, but wants to be a constrictive editor, conceptually they'd cease once they were warned about it. If not, they appear to just be there for disruption. What that meant to say, however, was that I learned that attitude by watching, whether or not it was actually the best way. Just some thoughts... I definitly think that this is an important issue that should be addressed, so that there is consistently, and so that we both stop disruptive editors from messing with Wikipedia and don't needlessly block those who could be productive contributors. -- Natalya02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'm one of the people who WILL report an IP if I warn them, check their contribs, and find nothing but vandalism. Here's my thinking: One, if a user comes in here to screw around without an account, and bops around from page to page for half-an-hour putting "Barney is TEH GAYYYY!!!!!11!!1!" and the like, I highly doubt that they're warming up their typing fingers for a nice long session of productive editing. Second: Blocks are preventative, yes? If it's RECENT vandalism (and yes, I'm sure that if you go back into my contribs you'll easily find instances where they weren't recent at all--I'll get to that in a minute) then the best way to stop them is a short block. Third: IMHO, it's probably BITE-ier to block a registered account than an IP, under these circumstances--IPs. after all, are much more transitory identifiers, and if a user screws up under one IP, he can always redeem himself, if he's so inclined, once his DHCP lease expires. A named account, though, will always carry that block. Finally--yes, there's an element of frustration here. I HAVE been known to report non-recent attacks, simply based on the following thought process: oh, here's an obvious vandal edit...warn...let's see what else they've been up to...ten other bad edits? WTF?? (clicks AIV bookmark). I try to keep that to a minimum, but as I'm sure everyone will wholeheartedly agree, vandal-fighting is tedious and frustrating. Sometimes, you vent a little...and in this case, by "you", I mean, "me". Done now....Gladys J Cortez02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so thick that you need multiple chances to understand that replacing a page with 'YOU'RE A FAGGOT!' is wrong, I don't want you here.HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends somewhat upon the type of vandalism. I rarely block at all, but yesterday I blocked as vandalism-only a site that had made 2 repeated serious BLP attack pages in 24 hours and nothing else. Sometime we need to send a very strong message. Usually , though we don't--we want to encourage people who are playing around--even playing around foolishly & harmfully as in the above example--to come back and work constructively. I check back on the accounts, ip or named, that I have sent serious warnings to, and very few of them have ever come back and done more damage. DGG (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree that we want to encourage the play-around-ers to come back and edit productively, the question that pops up in my skeptical little heart is "...but seriously, do you think they will?" To me, if you have sincerely good intentions, you're likely to start off in a manner that demonstrates them; if you start off in a joking, screw-around manner, the message you're sending is I don't take this place, or the work that's done here, seriously. And those are the users who concern me. (Is there, other than a slight reluctance to AGF, anything fundamentally flawed in this view?)Gladys J Cortez03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly understand where you are coming from Gladys, I do tend to think that that is a flawed point of view. Any of us who have done vandalism patrol are obviously committed to this project and take it rather seriously. This makes it more difficult for us to consider the mindset of those who fall within that enormous universe of people who don't take it seriously for whatever reason. Such people might include a 14 year old who vandalizes for laughs with her friends; but who in a couple of years might be doing research for a high school project, learn something interesting that isn't on Wikipedia, and want to insert it. Or it might include two very smart friends I went out for drinks with last week, both highly educated professionals who are contemptuous of Wikipedia and might (for all I know) make nonsense anonymous edits when they are drunk late at night; but who might come around in the end and start contributing some of their considerable knowledge to the project.
Sure, there are a lot of vandals who will never be anything but that, but we should also remember that most of the rest of the world does not take Wikipedia so seriously and that that's hardly a sin. Rather than perma-blocking a new account after a few unhelpful edits, we would do better to take the high road by continually warning the user and blocking only after the last warning has been received, preferably for a short period of time. Who knows, maybe some of those folks will be impressed by the commitment so many have to the project—sometimes when reverting vandalism within seconds I can't help but think that the newbie vandal must be somewhat amazed at how quickly their damage was undone—and will feel some contrition after wrecking the work of others and only being met in response with relatively polite notes to stop their behavior. Even if only 1 in 100 reacts that way, and even if only half of those go on to make positive contributions, isn't that utterly worth it? We should be thinking of Wikipedia as a project that will last for 10, 20, or even 100 years, and in order to keep it going we will need a steady stream of new volunteers. Instead of thinking of new vandal users as bad folks trying to break the 'pedia (even though some of them will be that), it's better if we think of them as people who have come far enough to hit the "edit" button and who might be converted into productive editors. Indef blocking every new account that makes a few vandal edits or blocking IP's without giving them a final warning do not strike me as effective long-term strategies, and we lose very little (basically just time and a bit of extra effort) by being courteous and assuming good faith till we're practically blue in the face.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace puts it very well. Unfortunately, it is also possible to go blue in the face trying to convince people who have the other attitude, best summed up by the comment further up in the thread: "If you're so thick [insert random vandal edit] I don't want you here." It is a misunderstanding of the many reasons people have for experimenting, and the wide range in ages, which impacts on the way they experiment. Also, many people experiment with the warnings, and test to see if they really will get blocked. That should be considered, though the best advice if you end up testing a new account to destruction, is to get a new one, and start off by admitting that you were editing under a previous account. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question of "to indef or not to indef" appears regularly at WT:AIV. the most recent such conversation is the three threads starting here: [2]. It might be worth a read for those interested in this topic. Part of that thread goes into "vandalism" vs. "test" edits; I agree that we should extend good faith in differentiating between the two. My comments below are for accounts that I judge to be "vandalism".
Indef blocking an account that has, so far, been used only for vandalism (as opposed to test edits), without the 4-level warning sequence, is by far the most efficient use of our time. Being blocked indef does not give you cancer, or prevent your graduation from college, or go in your "permanent record". It is not "unfair". It protects the encyclopedia. For the tiny (and it is tiny) percentage of people who want another chance, there's {{unblock}}, there's {{2ndchance}}, and there's the option of creating a new account when the autoblock expires. Read the mediawiki pages used for blocked accounts; it's extremely gentle and AGF'y.
Let's take Bigtimepeace's guesstimate; let's say 1 in 100 indef blocked users would have eventually contributed constructively. You have to balance that against the extra time it take editors to report, and admins to re-block, the other 99 vandals we've given a free second chance to. I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who vandalizes several pages, and would have turned things around after a 4th warning or a short block, and yet still can't be bothered to request unblocking. In fact, that's the perfect way to identify that 1%: people who request unblocking, and are willing to jump thru the hoop of {{2ndchance}}. I suggest that everyone who is concerned that we are indef blocking potentially good contributers patrol the unblock request category, and hand out second chances to those you think are not a lost cause. But it makes no sense to to me to block an account that is 99% sure to be an unrepentant vandal for 24 hours, only to block them for longer next time. --barneca (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are those who due to ignorance or youthfulness, don't get it, and think vandalising is a big lark. What we have to make clear is that anyone, if they later become serious, can start over with a new account. To that end, the actual block message should never send signals that someone is permanently verboten. We have banning for that. Carcharoth (talk)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
It seems pretty clear to me, and unblocking is prominently mentioned. I can't find the mediawiki message right now and have to run (surely someone can add a link here for me?), but it is very gentle, very easy to read. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The visible bit of MediaWiki:Blockedtext is easy to read, but click the three "show" links and then see how large the message gets. And then try reading and understanding all that without giving up and walking away. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument hinges on the fact that blatant vandals can become productive members of the community. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence to suggest such a rosy outlook. It's a little naïve (and I mean that will all due respect). EVula// talk // ☯ //15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) If they can't even be bothered to read the unblock instructions, then isn't giving up and walking away forever exactly what we want them to do? I don't know, those instructions look really well thought out and clear to me. The only real problem is they're long. We're trying to identify people who, in spite of vandalizing, can be turned into productive editors. Are these the type of people who aren't going to read something because it's long? --barneca (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is one way to find out. Start a new account, get blocked, try actually going through the various stages of getting unblocked, and see what the success rate is. Or don't even bother with the first step - just asked to be blocked and then sit down and actually try getting unblocked and see what you think of how things look and work from the other side. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed experiment; your average Wikipedia administrator is going to be far, far more familiar with the Wikipedia system than your run-of-the-mill vandal. You'd have to introduce a new person to Wikipedia for the express purpose of blocking them and having them request an unblock for it to be effective. EVula// talk // ☯ //15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Is there any chance some of us lowly editors could get some help with our problems? I mean isn't that what this noticeboard is supposed to be for? There are several issues below that need attention and in the last few hours all of the edits to this page have been either this mindnumbing conversation or best wishes to an outgoing admin. Little help? -- Grant.Alpaugh15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} Most experinaced vandal patrolers will agree with me, there are two types of new user vandalism: Type A and Type B users. Type A are your classic noobs who have no clue what they are doing, but their edits are considered vandalism. Type B is what the Vandal only Account (VoA). their edits clearly show a malice in their editing patterns, contain the standard vandal insults, are un-communicative, and ignore warnings. Type A, will normally become good users, while type B is blocked on sight. βcommand 214:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are inexperienced vandal patrollers, who are not aware of this distinction, blocking type A on sight based on observing others blocking type B on sight? Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
inexperienced vandal patrollers don't block; admins block. I, and everyone I am aware of at WP:AIV, look to see whether it's type A or B. Watch the action at WP:AIV sometime; lots of reports get declined. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I see precious little evidence that we're promoting idiots to adminship. Type B accounts should be blocked on sight, and often times, you can see the pattern (and where it's going) well before they've garnered a substantial number of edits. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor registers with a name "lkusflsfksibniwbncibiwckn kbnwec8kcbscdkbsd", and then makes 25 bad faith vandalistic edits. How many warnings do you want them to get? Do you want them blocked for vandalism, or blocked for username violation? And what kind of vandalism are we talking about; adding "dan is gay" to my userpage (not serious), or blp vio "x was accused but not convicted of having sex with children"? (very serious)? Just checking. Please disregard this, Dan Beale-Cocks14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already typed a response to this, so I'm not going to disregard it. :P Agreed, sometimes the full "path" of warnings aren't needed. I've blocked IPs for 3 hours without warning before, simply because I could tell that it was a one-off vandalism spree done by some bored kid who was still online. The short block killed his fun, and minimized damage. Would a warning have worked? Maybe, but a block definitely worked, and I've got better things to do than coddle vandals. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes just following them around playing "rollback" with them works better. They get bored and give up and go away, and you avoid filling in any paperwork! :-) (Only for non-serious vandalism, of course). Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, sometimes just using rollback works. I don't have the time to follow them around all day, though; if it's obvious they're not going to be productive, why allow them to continue vandalizing? EVula// talk // ☯ //15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an account has only bad faith edits it can be blocked on sight without warnings. There is simply no point in allowed a disruptive user who has never been constructive to continue. The block notice tells them what they did wrong, but they already know what they did wrong because it is only bad faith edits that get this kind of block. If they truly repent then they can use the unblock template, or in a day or two the autoblock will expire and they can create a new account.
Now it is true that not all users who need a block should be reported to AIV which deals with a very specific type of problem user with very specific criteria. As to if AIV should be used to report vandal only accounts that have not been warned is something for WT:AIV to decide, but it is our current and best practice to block these users on sight. (1 == 2)Until16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with EVula on this one. AIV only rarely deals (in my experience at least) with users that haven't been sufficiently warned. Of course, administrators sometimes step in before this is even needed and block the accounts when it is clear the only intent is to disrupt the workings and readings of Wikipedia. I do this, the blocking should suffice when reasonable grounds for a block is visible. If this is to be changed, WT:AIV is the best venue for that. On a slightly different point, how come some IPs get blocked as vandalism only accounts? Surely that's only supposed to be used on clear, and indefinitely blocked registered users. Rudget (Help?) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes admins remove names from report boards such as AIV or UAA because they are following the protocols for that boards to much. Some blocks are just common sense, and even if the board requires a full set of warnings and a court order, should just be blocked anyways. (1 == 2)Until16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe exprienced admins can often recognize a vandalism only account from only a few edits. For example look for an apparent understading of how Wikipedia works unusual for someone new but making only harmful edits, or new accounts continuing the pattern of previously blocked vandals. I agree indef block as vandalism only account should be made only to registerd accounts, and if ther is reasonable benifit of a doubt that the account is just a newbie testing things out something less drastic is in order. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly heartened by the answers above, but can't say I'm especially surprised either (I think my view is the minority one among those who deal with vandalism, but oh well). Yes, it's often easy to spot folks who are here to vandalize, and blocking sure does stop them. Simply giving a warning often stops them too though, and if it's their first warning it includes a "welcome" message that is a bit nicer (and probably more surprising) than a "you're blocked" notice. Anyone who does recent changes patrol and leaves warnings can attest to the fact that very often the first warning (be it after the first, third, or fifth vandal edit) is often the last. God knows how many IP's or new accounts went on a mini-vandalism spree, were warned once, and then never vandalized again (e.g. this edit I made two edits ago). If we can deter a bunch of vandalism (and I think it's inescapable that we do) without leaping to the block button, why not do that?
To those who would say "but why not just block them instead?" I would say the following. First off, putting the smack down with a block right off the bat might actually encourage the person to come back and vandalize again ("I'll show Captain Admin!", that thing Newton said, etc.) whereas a simple "Hi there! Thanks for stopping by, please don't do that again" is a rather boring reply and may cause the vandal to throw in the towel since they only provoked a mild mannered response (of course many times it doesn't, but I'm trying to think against the grain here). Also, while it's true that a lot of AIV reports are declined and rightfully so (which is good), it's also true that a lot of crap AIV reports are made which is probably partially a function of how block-happy we are (not good). If admins are willing to indef a new account after two "Bob is gay!" edits, why wouldn't new recent changes patrollers assume that they should report an IP vandal to AIV after deleting a couple of things from an article and without warning them first? Similarly, anyone who has done RC patrol has seen any number of crap "rv vandalism" edits—situations where vandal patrollers revert IP contributions practically on sight without taking the extra 5-10 seconds to actually read what the IP did.
I've done a good amount of RC patrol and think it's an important part of what we do here (unfortunately), but sometimes I worry that we worry so much about the barbarians at the gate (which, some editors will readily admit, can come to mean practically all anonymous users) that we develop an unhealthy siege mentality. I'm staking out a fairly extreme position here in part because I believe it and in part because I think it needs to be said, but I would hope those who advocate the "block on sight, screw the warnings" approach see how that method can have real drawbacks and that what I am saying here is not completely insane. There's far too much of an us-against-the-world approach in some of the comments above, and an underlying tone of vandals-are-bad-people-who-can't-be-reformed which I find troublesome. Don't worry though, I'll go off and block some vandals in the next 24 hours to atone for being such a weak-kneed appeaser. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the best-argued and most coherently considered piece of opinion I've read on wikipedia for many months, and really, I urge people to take serious note of it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recent sock of a vandal has been using Twinkle for disruptive editing (by reverting legitimate edits as vandalism). See [these contribs]. Is their anyway we could limit Javascript based applications such as Twinkle to established users?--UrbanRose18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyone can edit their own monobook file. Perhaps Twinkle could disable itself if the user doesn't have X number of edits, though... EVula// talk // ☯ //18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Twinkle from Gadgets, at least for now. While a sock could conceivably add Twinkle, this creates an edit trail, and users could conceivably track such changes by watching Monobook changes. Another concern hat I've heard raised is that it's impossible to disable the Twinkle gadget for users who have abused it (we can protect monobook.js if necessary, but can't change their gadget preferences). I welcome any discussion regarding this, and whether it should stay removed or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent decision. I've been wondering for a few days where the best place was to make the suggestion to remove Twinkle from gadgets. In this particular case, of course, it wouldn't have helped (blocking was the only answer), but in general this is spot on. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as it can substantially limit vandalism without any great cost. (It's easy enough to manually add it to monobook). --Bfigura(talk)18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remember the dot re-added TW to the gadgets list with the reasoning that it was "now fixed in Internet Explorer"... I'm not sure he understood it was removed due to abuse. I've re-removed it and left him a message informing him of this discussion. krimpet✽18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initially objected to add twinkle to gadgets, per the apparent lack of moderation functionality, so I'm fine with it removed from gadgets. →AzaToth18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with it in gadgets there is no way to stop abuse of the tool. Where was the original discussion to have it added to gadgets? Tiptoetytalk19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could have the Twinkle gadget automatically disable itself if the user's monobook.js is protected. That would allow it to be controlled without requiring users to understand JavaScript. Outright removing the gadget is not the only option we have. —Remember the dot(talk)19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I fully agree. This is a temporary solution to the problem, and can easily be undone if there's a better way to handle it. But until then, I think the gadget should stay removed. Ral315 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to prevent Twinkle from being abused. Greater availability of Twinkle should actually have a positive impact on vandal control because more users will have the vandal-fighting tools. —Remember the dot(talk)19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disabling Twinkle; any user can still install it. However, the concerns about allowing anyone to surreptitiously enable it are very, very valid, and this isn't the first time I've seen them voiced. EVula// talk // ☯ //19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment; I'm on wikibreak. Twinkle's code is open-source and publicly available, so anyone can implement it unrevokably via, say, Greasemonkey. The only way to forcibly stop Twinkle abuse is by blocking, and that's probably the approach that we should use. Perhaps I should edit MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown to add "Abusing editing tool" or some such. We should re-add Twinkle to the list of Gadgets, perhaps with a warning. Nihiltres{t.l}19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have code ready that will disable potentially abusive gadgets like Twinkle if the user's monobook.js is protected. This will give us finer, though as Nihiltres pointed out, not perfect, defenses against problematic users. —Remember the dot(talk)19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best bet mate, some times a person is truly just testing out Twinkle and they do not mean harm. Obviously this one did mean harm. But we do not know that of all. A block is not something that should be used for something like this unless we know. The best is Remember the dot's suggestion. Rgoodermote20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nihiltres, I think that the issue is that simply checking a box in Gadgets installs Twinkle, without knowledge of how/what its functionary is, is the issue. It's not the same as if someone is mucking about in the monobook and figures out what javascripts are for. So therein lies the potential for abuse if it remains a gadget. To be fair, I haven't noticed a rise in Twinkle abuse since it was listed in gadgets. People will abuse what they can not matter the circumstances. Keegantalk20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty hard to be unsure about what a button marked "Rollback" does. But if you want, we can have a big fat disclaimer next to the Twinkle gadget. —Remember the dot(talk)20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoroughly blunt opinion: if someone doesn't know how to install Twinkle manually, they're more likely to screw something up severely. I see the installation as a nice little valve to make sure that Twinkle users have at least some measure of intelligence (or, to sound less dickish, a measure of proficiency). The chief problem with Twinkle is that people are using it to edit, which isn't what it was developed for; it's goal (as far as I know) was to help streamline some of the more complicated processes we have (such as an easy way of reporting users to AIV), but editors should still know how to do those things without the tool. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, to the both of you, the point of my last line is that most Twinkle misuse is not by accident or misunderstanding but of intent. I agree with EVula of the goal of automated tools. VandalProof, the forerunner to Twinkle came along about six months after I started editing. I had already learned how to make reports by hand and that eased the process of minding which tab I'm on in my browser, which page I'm on, and is my markup correct (I truly suck at anything related to markup, see my typo above. I'm surprised you all let me edit.) Twinkle is a "net positive" but will be gamed, I support removing it from the gadgets. You can put a big disclaimer, but that won't prevent misuse. Keegantalk21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the contributions Urban Rose has linked to, I see lots of page-move vandalism but no abuse of Twinkle. The edits the vandal made using Twinkle appear to be valid reversions of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.245 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is vandalizing then block them - don't deprive the rest of us of a useful tool. Bloody annoying and inconsiderate in my opinion. The comment about installing it manually being some sort of intelligence test is downright patronising - one doesn't, and shouldn't, need any understanding of how those wretched monobook things work in order to be a productive and intelligent editor. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be limited to autoconfirmed user, by using some JavaScript like wgUserGroups.join(' ').match(/\bautoconfirmed\b/). — Dispenser00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? How many people's preferences did we just forcibly modify because one user (a blocked user I add) abused something? Shall we limit pagemoves to admin-only, now, too? Why don't we just lock down the whole site, to prevent vandalism? If a user is blatantly abusing the project, we just block them and be done with it. The only permanent damage here is the damage we've done to ourselves. – Luna Santin (talk)01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the idea of limiting it to autoconfirmed users. The code for this is simple, the requirement will deter all but the most persistent vandals who are determined to get their hands on the tool no matter what, and it will let regular users have the tool without trouble. If a user abuses it and refuses to stop, then just block them. —Remember the dot(talk)04:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have slept on this, and am still angry about the removal of this gadget. The removal just shows the contempt which some admins have for the rest of us. Why not disable all editing for everyone because some people misuse editing tools? Stupid, stupid, stupid. If someone is vandalizing and does not respond to appropriate warnings then block them - don't punish the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So removing it from gadgets has zero protective effect, and just pisses off those of us who don't want to fiddle with monobook stuff. Great. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle isn't that hard to install manually. A notice to users not just removing it & leave us wondering woudl have been nice, but it's not that restrictive. I has only quoted it out of my monobook as I wanted to keep my settings so I had it a bit easier but a one line copy & paste then refreshign is not that hard!. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So like I said, zero protective effect by removing the gadget. I have never found any monobook stuff easy, it is obscure and fiddly and never seems to work straight off, and you end up with a page full of weird stuff that you have absolutely no understanding of. Making things harder for honest editors is about the worst possible thing to do if you are serious about promoting good editing and discouraging vandalism. If someone is misusing editing tools, then they can be warned and blocked as appropriate, or is that too complicated for our lords and masters? DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that after all the positive response to making Twinkle a gadget, one admin decided to remove this because of one vandal. I really don't know what else to say about that. Regarding the idea in general, Twinkle's edits are just as easily undone as any other. Vandals making use of it has no effect on how we fight them, so removing the gadget does nothing to protect Wikipedia. It just punishes everyone else. In addition, all gadgets capable of producing edits directly can be used for malicious purposes. Why not remove popups too then, or even hotcat? Stop trying to prevent malice using blanket restrictions. We're fighting vandalism just fine the way things are. Equazcion•✗/C •12:02, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
PS I just realized this is the same admin who's been going around full-protecting templates "just to be safe" [3] (all of which were undone shortly afterwards). This, too, needs to be undone. As User:Remember the dot points out above, making Twinkle more widely available can only have a net-positive effect. It's a vandalism-fighting tool, and regardless of the one person (or few people) we see abusing it, far more use it as intended. Equazcion•✗/C •12:28, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Equazcion. This seems to have been an overreaction, and should be reverted as soon as possible. Removing it from gadgets doesn't fix the problem at all, and simply inconveniences legitimate users. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not wheelwar about this :) I think that blocking the users abusing twinkle is like using a big hammer to stop a fly (just look at the few occurrences that happened last week), I therefore see the point of not having it as a gadget. I however agree that removing it unilaterally was a terrible idea (think of all the users that are discovering it is no longer working and wonder why). I still think we need to have the ability to turn twinkle off if needed, maybe by adding a variable to the monobook? -- lucasbfrtalk17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed something, but where was the discussion (and consensus) for putting Twinkle in the Gadgets in the first place? EVula// talk // ☯ //18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that people are upset that Twinkle's been removed from gadgets; if there were a way to disable it on a user-by-user basis, or notify everyone who had it installed that I was removing it, I would've done so. However, there was never a consensus, as far as I can tell, for adding it to Gadgets, and given that it's easily added to Special:Mypage/monobook.js (details at WP:TWINKLE), I think that the benefits of this removal outweigh the problems. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle was added back around when gadgets first began. There was a brief discussion about Twinkle here. The benefits of the removal definitely do not outweigh the problems. If this were a simple removal of the preferences option, that wouldn't be so terrible. But you've effectively pulled the rug out from under all the people who already had Twinkle installed through the gadget, and there's no telling how many that was -- all because of a single vandal. And again, people having access to Twinkle doesn't make it any easier to vandalize or any harder to roll back said vandalism. Just because someone uses a certain method to for malicious purposes doesn't mean we then take it away from everyone. People can vandalize articles a million other ways -- such as using the edit button. Again this needs to be reverted immediately. Equazcion•✗/C •18:58, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Site wide matters that affect all users in such a sweeping way are not the provenance of any one lone admin to decide, ever. The gadget page should be brought back to the pre-Ral change status quo for a proper discussion of this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break [Twinkle]
After reading this I have gotten the conclusion that there is an logical consensus that there is no net gain to have TW removed from gadgets, so I made the decission to re-add it. →AzaToth19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I know that this is not the first time that Twinkle as a gadget has been referenced as being a potential problem. The fact that there was practically no discussion to "install" it in the first place compounds this situation (I could probably look for the diff if I tried hard enough...). I'm strongly of the opinion that it needs to stay out of the available gadgets. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Addendum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive140#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames, while not about Twinkle as a gadget, is highly critical of the effects of too-new users utilizing Twinkle for all their edits. Quite frankly, I don't like lowering the bar of entry for Twinkle use to the point where someone can only function on the site by using Twinkle; such users are bound to screw up, and screw up hard. (I've already seen tons of crappy username reports to WP:UAA that are done with Twinkle by largely ignorant editors) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406#Twinkles Gone Wild is another somewhat relevant topic, although much more hilariously named than the one above. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you missed the part about forcibly removing it from someone's monobook was useless as they could enable it via the gadgets. I also didn't present it in the manner that you apparently interpreted it; I was presenting it as evidence that Twinkle abuse is a very real concern. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the gadget so that it will now only work for autoconfirmed users. This is about the same as what we do for other semi-powerful tools such as Special:MovePage.
By the way, protecting a user's monobook.js isn't a perfect solution either. They could just change their skin and add Twinkle to another JavaScript file. They could also make the script work through GreaseMonkey. Or they could just make disruptive edits manually. In short, if a user is being disruptive, then they're probably going to continue to be disruptive even if we revoke Twinkle to the best of our ability. —Remember the dot(talk)22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I consider locking a monobook to be enforcing a decree that the user shouldn't be using a script because they're being disruptive, but still making positive contributions (read: someone whose heart is in the right place, but is too dense to realize that they're screwing up). Yes, it's not a perfect solution for the very reasons you listed, but most of the time, people aren't going to change their theme just to get around it (and they'd promptly be nailed to the wall if they did). As for your change to Twinkle itself... that's a step in the right direction, but I still feel that people who can't edit without Twinkle have no business installing it. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely lost and unable to do much of anything on here without Twinkle? If not, I'm not discussing you. If so, I am, and I feel that you should spend more time getting familiar with the site without automated tools. I'll readily admit that I'm a total elitist when it comes to this; I've garnered 26k+ edits (including deleted edits) without any automated tools, and feel that I'm a better editor for it. I'm equally willing to admit that it's my opinion, and mine alone. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well able to edit without Twinkle, I also have no understanding and little confidence in editing my monobook, and am very reluctant to try. Gadgets are a boon to editors who do not wish to fart around with their monobooks. You appear to be the only person referring to these alleged people unable to do anything without twinkle. Twinkle as a gadget is useful to many. Editors who abuse any editing tools may be warned, reverted, blocked as appropriate. Removing the gadget (which is what this thread is about) is no substitute for admins just doing their jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from; I never said anything like that, and can't see where I even alluded to it. I'm perfectly aware that I'm the only one stating my opinion, which is why I'm not saying anything along the lines of "everything should be done my way". If you're not comfortable editing your monobook, that's your prerogative, but I feel you'd be a better editor if you address your ignorances (not intended to be an insult, though I can see how it can be interpreted as one). EVula// talk // ☯ //15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
errr - "No idea where you're getting my "if we kill twinkle, it'll be a field day for admins"-type comment from"? - I have never suggested that you said anything of the sort. Maybe you are hallucinating. As for monobooks - what would make Wikipedia editors better is a reduction in the excessive amount of obscure techy type stuff required for some functionality. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The only reason we call it an automated tool is because it isn't built in to MediaWiki. The undo function, variables, templates, and even the ref tag all perform a kind of automated function. There's no reason to say that use of Twinkle gives people any less experience than another editing function. Reverting vandalism, warning users, and nominating things for deletion are all things that help people learn about Wikipedia, whether they use Twinkle to perform those things or not. Equazcion•✗/C •23:06, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
IMO there's no reason to worry about revoking Twinkle. If a user is being disruptive, they should be blocked, no matter what method they're using to vandalize pages. The only situation where revoking twinkle would be useful is when someone is being disruptive unintentionally by using Twinkle, and I don't think we've seen a situation like that yet. If it happens, monobook.js can be protected -- and chances are if the user didn't understand how to use Twinkle, then they won't know about any of the workarounds Remember The Dot suggested. Equazcion•✗/C •22:46, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Also, if anyone is that concerned about Twinkle being a gadget, they should start a discussion at Village pump proposals, as is likewise the current method for suggesting a new gadget. Equazcion•✗/C •22:49, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
This is a more general issue than Twinkle. Many gadgets are liable to abuse, the find and replace of wikiEd could be a right pain, but rather than removing them all would it not be better for admins to be able to lock out a users gadgets, and possibly protect all there .js pages with a switch? Treated the same way as blocking; Allow free use, if abused then they are locked out (probably longer periods e.g. 1 week minimum) this would reduce the potential for abuse and allow the rest of us to get on with editing. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: how about we start a discussion at VPP for adding it, since as near as I can tell, there wasn't one in the first place? EVula// talk // ☯ //15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do the same thing for every other gadget on Gadgets? For that matter, was there a discussion for Gadgets to be added? I never even knew the feature existed until yesterday when I found this thread. Lawrence Cohen § t/e15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VPP is the wrong place and near useless anyway as no one watches it relative to the size of the actual Wikipedia editor population; you'll get at best a tiny, tiny subset of the population there. Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals is the right venue apparently but appears dead too. Lawrence Cohen § t/e15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia noticeboards suffer from the same problem - none are used by more than a tiny subset of editors. The Admin noticeboards are used by a tiny proportion of admins, and an even smaller proportin of non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TWINKLE should not be a gadget. If TWINKLE is a gadget, we can't prevent people from using it. If it's installed in monobook.js, we can at least take a reasonable step toward doing so, by protecting their monobook.js. When TWINKLE was disabled as a gadget, I did this to prevent Heliac (talk·contribs) from returning and abusing it more. (I also blocked him, but if he comes back and resumes editing, I don't want him to be twinkling all over the place when he does so.)
In addition, I disagree with the idea that TWINKLE should be considered a part of the MediaWiki interface like the undo button is. Perhaps TWINKLE is just an interface for speeding up editing when used correctly, but the way many people use it is as a substitute for understanding policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should Twinkle be left in Gadgets?
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
First, Twinkle doesn't even work unless you are an autoconfirmed user, and we can implement additional restrictions on its use if desired. Second, users should not be forced to deal with any esoteric wikisyntax, including editing JavaScript, in order to perform common tasks. —Remember the dot(talk)19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed, but I'm not convinced that this is the best location to ask this question (though I can't think of a better one). EVula// talk // ☯ //15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's easy enough to install it if you want it, and at least having to put it in your monobook makes it easier to remove from problem users. — iridescent19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The monobook.js is an imperfect, but reasonable, and otherwise handy, way to make a first pass at weeding out possibly well-meaning people who will do more harm than good with Twinkle. DuncanHill is the exception that proves the rule. just to be clear, this is saying a nice thing, not a mean thing. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I am continally confused by the uproar over rollback, when Twinkle (in inexperienced hands) does far more damage, and we're currently handing it out like candy. --barneca (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Should whoever opened this poll be slapped with a wikitrout?
Honestly, we seem to have lost the ability to discuss anything these days. Have we now decided that polling is the new consensus??? SpartazHumbug!19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered users are vandalizing this article putting false and unverifiable informations and spam links. Please put a semi-protection so unregistered users can't edit it. Thank you. --Mextalk20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inclined to protect the article (by the way, please use WP:RFPP in the future]]. The vandalism has been sporadic the past few days and by a few localized users, which can be dealt with on their individual merits. Page protection usually comes when an article is being hit so hard that keeping up with maintaining the integrity of the article becomes problematic. You've done a good job cleaning the article, I suggest WP:AIV when vandals appear. With the edits being a handful over a few days, it's not in the encyclopedia's best interest to prohibit editing in order to handle a couple people. Other admins may disagree. We all have personal opinions regarding policy :) Keegantalk20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unfortunately it is very hard to determine which people do it. I imagine they are fans from Univision forum. Anyway, please be aware that she has no other official site than Thalia.com, ThaliaRadio.com, Thalia.emilaforums.com (Official Message Board) and MDCThalia.com, nor she is of Arabic descendent. Thanks and regards, --Mextalk06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Battle of Germantown I have listed references stating it was not a decisive victory(they haven't listed anything), yet they continue to undo my edits. I do not want to start an edit war and I am not really sure what I can do. Can you possibly warn them, or tell them to add a reference? Thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Start a discussion on the article talkpage. If you can revert the next day just the once, with an edit summary inviting participation to said discussion, then you have done all that can be expected. I would point out that if you are amending the consensus version of the article, and introducing new references, the onus is on you to "prove" that they improve the article - although NPOV does indicate that all reasonable and verifiable viewpoints should be noted. I hope this helps, as this is the limit on what an admin can do in matters of content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Commons issue mostly. However, while the hints I gathered from peeking at this Japanese site say that the author has been identified correctly, the images all come from here, where ARA mentioned at the top. However, as I mentioned before, send this to the Commons, since the images are there. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.
This user does not understand Wikipedia at all. I tried to help him calmly and cheerfully, but he has posted many heated threads on my talk page. All of his articles are of original research, and while I tried to correctly inform him of how to reference an article, he turned around and began insulting and criticizing me. If anyone could be of any help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢDrop me a line§20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What admin action is needed here? You don't need to be an admin to help an unwilling-to-learn newbie, just the patience of a saint (so kudos to you for trying!). Happy‑melon20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yeow. Being kind to newbies and trying to help them out is not without its hazards. Redmark, thank you for trying.
He's contributing good stuff. It's stuff we need. It's even referenced. I just cleaned up one of his articles a little bit. But the bigger issue I see is -- how do we deal with good contributors who enter the project with that kind of nastiness? I have a hunch that plastering his page with "NPA" warnings will send him away for good. Maybe let someone else help him out; it will stress you less. Good luck, Antandrus (talk)20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? There is no research which is not original in the sense that when someone writes a value for Wiki, it has to be original, or it should be subsumed under another value. All the references were related to the text. Instead of taking responsibility for your sabotage of value, you like to use threats, don't you? Now grow up, kid,m this encyclopedia is not your play ground, it is used by real people to gain knowledge. If you can't understand that wait untiol you mature a little, and come back to this community. It is not aboput your technical prowess but about knowledge. If you want to refer this discussion to higher authority (administrator or Jimmy Wales) buy all means, let see who is right about your disragrd for basic etiquette and your careless work on the Business War Games site. If you are an administrator, let's see if we can take this privilege away from you. You are a menace to this adult encycolpedia. "
RMV, you don't deserve to be "talked down to". I'll be posting shortly on the user talk of said editor shortly. In the meantime, I would recommend simply forgetting Cimas exists. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this resolved ATM. Cimas and I have opened a dialogue on our talkpages to address these issues. Redmarkviolinist, if further problems arise, please do drop me a line on my talkpage. cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm checking to see that what I have done conerning the move of a page abides by the MOS/Wikipedia policy. The article is Iran-Contra affair; originally, the title was Iran-Contra Affair with a capital "A". A move to a lowercase "a" was proposed on the talk page about a week ago, but the template that had been placed was removed because I guess the page request wasn't listed at WP:RM. Anyway, seeing as the move would abide by Wikipedia:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles, I was bold and tried moving it myself, but got a failure notice. So I copied all the content into the then-redirect page Iran-Contra affair, deleted all the content from Iran-Contra Affair, and re-redirected all the redirect pages.
Did that comply with Wikipedia rules? I'm only wondering because the page history is located at Iran-Contra Affair (capital A), not Iran-Contra affair (lowercase a), where the content currently is. A response would be appreciated. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling the whole archiving setup of this talk page needs looking at. The archive numbering given on the talk page is oddly back to front. Jayen46600:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I've realised that page move is also an accepted way of archiving talk pages, and have restored the recent discussions myself. Jayen46610:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CAT:CSD is more backlogged than I have ever seen it. I tagged a page for speedy deletion about 2.5 hours ago and it's still there, so I checked the category and I practically gawked at the number of pages. — scetoaux(T|C)02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I was looking through the page history of the Mother article when I realized that, in the past month, it's been subject to some significant vandalism by a wide variety of new and anonymous editors. Looking back through the protection log, I found a number of attempts to try and stem the tide with short-term semi-protects; the most recent expired (not coincidentally) about a month ago. Based on these factors, I went ahead and semi-protected the page indefinitely. Since I made the call outside of the normal WP:RFPP process, though, I thought it best to post it here for the sake of transparency and further review--if anyone feels that the indefinite semi is unwarranted, feel free to shorten or remove it entirely. Thanks! --jonny-mt05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About three vandalism edits a day. Dunno, I think so long as it's not BLP-related, it's not a major concern, but it depends, I suppose. Ral315 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of that. It makes sense that the recent spate might be because of the upcoming holiday (which reminds me; I need to order some flowers), but there seems to be a more or less constant level of vandalism thanks to the popular pasttime of dissing matriarchs--a look at almost any point in the history shows vandalistic edits. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to knocking it down to a month or so to see if Mother's Day is indeed the cause or not and then reconsidering indefinite semi-protection if this doesn't do the trick. --jonny-mt03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following threads are due to a mistake I made when adding unicode spaces to the title blacklist (the regular spacebar space was added by mistake). This error should be fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, but I was intending to leave a message on my previous account for which I lost the password to leave talk page comments on this new account. Hidden Glass 2 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For people still getting this error, try refreshing your cache or simply restarting your internet browser. Other individuals have not gotten this error, and one individual below has managed to create the page he was seeking to do. Please, bear with us as the servers try to catch up and fix this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on article, added to local title blacklist
I was working on an article for the Bon to be Wild' album by the band Bazra, and for some reason it got added to the local title blacklist when I tried to click 'show preview'. I was able to click 'show preview' several times before while working on the article, but on the 10th or so time I got bumped to this unauthorized page. Note: I never saved any working edits, as I was merely writing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubeyes (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it impossible to create the "Irene Pivetti" page?
I was trying to create "Irene Pivetti" and I've got the message
"The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse."
Irene Pivetti has been President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies - her name is referred to at least in List of Presidents of the Italian Chamber of Deputies - I was trying to create at least a stub with some minimal info on her.
An "Unauthorized" message prevents me from assessing the article. It said that it is on a local blacklist and have to go here to request the creation of the talk page.--Lenticel(talk)06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category is perhaps over populated and could be broken down into useful subcategories. Such as institutes of regenerative medicine to start.
"
insitutes of regenerative medicine - perhaps institutes for regenerative medicine could have their own category or created as a list.
Create a new page which has been included on the local title blacklist
Please help me to create a math-related page "Mangler_Transformation". It is on transformation in boundary layers (mechanics/mathematics). It has been included on the local title blacklist.
Hi, I'm trying to create a Template to put on each football players page that organizes all of the NFL draft pick selections take by the Green Bay Packers in the 2006 nfl draft that would look like this.... Template:Packers2008DraftPicks . For some reason Template:Packers2006DraftPicks
page has been blacklisted and I would like to know why. They have been made under this same fashion for 2007 and 2008 but I cannot make any for previous years. Any help? Yunggunn2k3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilian Vowel System page "blacklisted"
To whom it may concern: I think I may have inadvertently caused the system to block this new page Sicilian Vowel System. I was the one who actually created it as a link from another page. I think it became locked and put on the "local title blacklist" because I clicked "show preview" several times. The system must have thought I was a spammer, because when I finally completed my article and had finished proofreading it, I went to "save page" at which time I noticed the message that my page was blacklisted. I'm hoping that someone may be able to help me. I'm merely trying to contribute linguistics-related information - it's nothing improper at all. Thank you in advance for your assistance. --Zulux1 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist error?
Tried to greet a new user (User_talk:Fiskbil) with a Welcome message and received this message
"Unauthorized The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist..." Not sure why the blacklist would trigger, unless it's wildcarding anything that's F**k?. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk
24.12.185.69 blacklisted
In trying to create this page to issue a warning, i was notified that the creation of the page was disallowed due to blacklisting.. ? Quaeler (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm this seem to be a widespread from this and the above reported blacklist problems, odd errors, perhaps a hacker?▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, read the initial statement above. It was something mistakenly added to the regex listings. It should be fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editor AlefZet suggested to merge Shato Turks, with a discussion on Talk:Shato Turks page, which does not exist and has been included on the local title blacklist, preventing the very discussion the suggestion is calling for. We either remove the AlefZet suggestion to merge, or open a discussion on Talk:Shato Turks page. Will you please respond on my talk page on your action. Please also note that suggested title Shatuo Turks has 3 major flaws: First and second, it replaces colloquial phonetics with 6,000 Google hits for self-name of a people with 100,000 Google hits, and third it includes the word Turks that is not a part of the self-name, akin to British Germans or Russian Eskimo. My offer is to merge both articles into one with a plain title "Shato". No disambiguation page is needed. --Barefact (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to write an article titled "False Holocaust Claims". In this article I intend to list many of the common Holocaust myths that could be proved with proper evidence. The reason for a page like this is very simple: people want to know the truth at a click of a button. Not every one is willing to conduct hours of online research just to find out whether something is true or not. It is very difficult to follow pages such as "Holocaust Denial" on Wikipedia, because such pages really do not answer the questions that people have. This page will be linked to other Wiki pages and other reputable sources providing more in depth information on each specific topic. It is my aim to make this page a joint effort work in progress. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrainetz (talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get an Unauthorized error when attempting to create the page. I have just "finished" a rewrite of Nicotine Anonymous which originally organized using the name Smokers Anonymous, but had to abandon it for trademark reasons. It seemed logical to have Smokers Anonymous redirect to Nicotine Anonymous. Would it be possible to unblacklist the Smokers Anonymous page for that purpose? -- Scarpy (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I tried to create this category but received an "Unauthorized" notice informing me that the page was blacklisted and that I should contact AN to ask that the page be created, with an explanation as to why I think it should.
Well, I'm obviously a transhumanist, and I'd like other transhumanists to be able to find me more easily, and I'd like to find other transhumanists on Wikipedia. A category may help.
An article has been created for Bridgwater College. When I noticed this I attempted to put the WP:SOMERSET project banner on it's talk page but it says: "page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist". I have no idea why & would appreciate any help or guidance.— Rodtalk07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. There was a temporary glitch, but it should be getting back to normal - I was able to create the talk page, for example, with a WP:SOMERSET tag for you. BencherliteTalk07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple of issues with the blacklist. A regular space was added causing certain issues. In addition, the regex .*[\x{2100}-\x{214F}].* was causing some issues as well. Everything should be back to normal. Start a new thread if there are further issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[5] - since it only accepts POST queries, all that's needed is a simple Javascript page, maybe on the toolserver, to bounce people there. Plus, you can check individual nodes' exit policies regarding Wikiepdia (208.80.152.2:80). east.718at 13:44, May 1, 2008
So, with three good options here, which should go into the anontools template? Or is it worth having multiple tests (sort of a belt and suspenders approach)? UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make such an inquiry, and do direct me to the right place if that's the case. I recently lost the password for my main account, User:Nick Graves, and requested that a new password be emailed to me. Unfortunately, it hasn't shown up in my inbox. I've since been using an old account for edits. Am I just SOoL recovering my main account, or is there a way to get me back into it? Thanks. Rohirok (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a spam filter, check that. Did you specify an email address in your preferences? If you haven't, and answer yes, try again. If you have, or answer no, either switch off the filter or give up (respectively). Try WP:HD next time...... Dendodge.TalkHelp16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you confirmed on your main account that you used to use this account, if all else fails you may be able to beg a developer to help you out, but they generally have better things to do. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching admins how to deal with disputes
As another project from the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, we've been working on education, as in teaching new admins how to deal with disputes. As part of this, we have a new page we'd like to add to the "School for new admins", which is at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. This page doesn't cover all types of disputes (which is one of the reasons for the Working Group!). There are still some other mechanisms which we're debating in the Group wiki. But we think that this provides a pretty good summary of existing methodologies. The page has not been formally linked in to the School yet, but I'd appreciate if other admins who have experience with dispute resolution, could look things over and offer comments. You're welcome to edit the page directly, or if you just have a tip you want to throw in, as "advice from a senior admin to a junior admin" (or even junior to junior!) feel free to add it to the "Tips" section on the page. More complex comments can of course be added to talk. Looking forward to your thoughts, Elonka19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly same editor, based on subject matter and content of edits. Blocked IP 6 months; seems static, but I hardly ever block an IP longer than that because of how little I understand how IP reassignment works. If someone wants to make it longer, they have 6 months to figure out how long. If you think it will get reassigned sooner, use your judgement on shortening, it's likely better than mine. --barneca (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wade Edwards and Malia Obama are kids of presidential candidates. Wade Edwards was not deleted even though it's a stub. Neither was Cate Edwards, which was subject to a AFD. However, it looks like Malia Obama, a girl and a black person is being deleted.
I can see why "other crap exists" is used. But we do need to make sure articles are treated equally. We should delete a black girl and keep a white boy. We should treat articles fairly and the SAME.
Ummm I seriously do not see how that is evidence of racial discrimination :/ ...more like jumping to conclusions in my opinion. It also appears you are soapboxing about this matter on many different forums and I would suggest you to stop. This is not a matter that requires administrative attention.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -Emerson.
Wade and Cate have other reasons to be notable; Wade's death was constantly mentioned in the media and by Edwards, Cate is an adult who appears to have achieved some borderline notabilty of her own. Malia is a 9 year old kid. Not the same situation. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cate Edwards article has a AFD. Lots of support for AFD in March 2007. Lots of support for deletion of similar article on Malia Obama. So there is a reason to consider deletion of Cate. If AFD decides to keep, I'm cool with that but there should be a process. Otherwise, anyone who disagrees with an AFD will remove the tag.
I reopened it because the old one was more than a year old. Graz11 deleted it. This is wrong because both that article and Malia Obama are similar yet the white girl's get kept but the black girl's looks like it will be deleted.Watchingobama (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD creation process seems to have confused Watchingobama[9] (and honestly, who can blame him for being confused), so I've left some step by step instructions on his talk page and also offered to file the AFD on his behalf if my step by step instructions aren't helpful enough.[10] --Bobblehead(rants)22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jack was blocked a couple of months back now as a self admitted sock of Moby Dick. Once he admitted it, there was only one course of action and that was an indef block. I've been in contact with him by email, and he's very interested in entering into a program of mentorship with me and would like to be unblocked. I did a lot of research into him when I blocked him, and although there were problems with previous accounts of his, the latest Jack Merridew account was actually fairly constructive and was certainly a a net positive for the project. I think with this account, he'd learnt from previous mistakes and although the socking was bad, it does give evidence that he is somewhat reformed. I'd therefore like to unban him and put him on a strict editing restriction as follows;
Endorse. He would also have to stick by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, but has privately told me he is quite happy to do this. I would be delighted to co-mentor here. His contributions under the Jack Merridew account, ignoring the fact that he was evading a ban, were constructive and I think he was unlucky to run into White Cat again. Quite frankly, he's far less of a POV-pusher than White Cat: t'would be silly to ban one but not the other. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - I think the JM account is proof itself that Davenbelle has reformed. Hell, Jack's positive contributions to me suggest he doesn't even need a mentorship. Sceptre(talk)22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I will be glad to give him another chance and possibly add another productive editor to the project. Best of luck Ryan, Malinaccier (talk)23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that unblocking/banning him with the above restrictions is the correct course of action, for the reasons stated above. seresin ( ¡? )23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had positive observations of the Jack Merridew account, and was surprised when he got blocked. I support an unblock, and if Ryan is going to mentor him, that'll be excellent, as I have full confidence in Ryan's judgment. If Moreschi wants to co-mentor, that's a big bonus here. Acalamari23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support under the restrictions stated above (and as if you haven't got enough mentors, I'd be happy to help too). Black Kite23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My gut instinct here is that he's highly likely to be a good editor now, and we should extend him good faith and another chance. Antandrus (talk)00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Practical Question: "Interacting" is pretty vague. If White Cat begins, say, reverting Jack's edits, is Jack allowed to speak up for them? Or is he required to shout "Run Away!" and let it go?Kww (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat. If he goes around interacting with Jack, I would view that as seriously as Jack interacting with White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so optimistic as you all, and I feel I have considerable experience with Davenbelle. I was an arbitrator on his "Moby Dick" arbitration case, have dealt with several subsequent CheckUser investigations, and was the one to ban him, a year ago today. I don't think he has or will change, and I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory. To remind you, Davenbelle was involved in an arbitration case in 2005 in which it was found that he had stalked White Cat, and warned to stop.
What happened? He didn't, and was blocked for harassment of White Cat less than a month later. He was, by the way, engaged in a second arbitration case at the same time as this one, and that one saw him banned from all politics articles, for protracted warring. After his first block, he "left," but almost immediately returned with the sockpuppet Moby Dick, and immediately evaded the arbitration findings by returning to stalking Megaman and White Cat. Of course, a few months later, now in June 2006, we had another arbitration case, "Moby Dick" was found to be Davenbelle, and given a parole to keep him from harassment of White Cat or Megaman. The result? Blocked for a week not long after for harassment. Then? He created an account on Commons, where White Cat is an admin, and soon got himself blocked for another week for harassment. Undeterred, he created another identity, Diyarbakir, to evade the arbitration ruling and harass White Cat again. That account was soon blocked, and as a result, we finally banned Davenbelle. This is when he created "Jack Merridew," and immediately began editing popular fiction articles just when that controversy, involving White Cat, was beginning. And that's not really a surprise: White Cat has two main editing interests—Turkish/Kurdish issues, and TV shows, especially Starfleet. Davenbelle, "Moby Dick," and "Diyarbakir" all mostly edited Turkish/Kurdish articles and stalked White Cat there, but even then, edits like [11] to one of White Cat's Starfleet articles were part of the stalking. Jack Merridew happened to be intensely interested in White Cat's other area of editing, and spent his entire time warring against White Cat's position, and we are to believe this was constructive editing on his part? Now, five arbitrations (that I know about), four identities (that we know about), and three years later, after all that time of concerted and bad-faith stalking, sockpuppeting, and evasion of restrictions across multiple wikis, when he gets caught, not by accident but because he was engaging in the same stalking of the same editor yet again, we are optimistic that he will reform This Time? I think the best thing we could do would be to try to do whatever we can through blocks to break his psychological addition to Wikipedia and conflict, not encourage him back. Dmcdevit·t02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is WP:BEANS but "Obviously, I would expect due respect from White Cat." leaves an obvious way for JM to stalk without stalking. He just needs to get ahead of White Cat and do things that will annoy him. The different opinions (I don't know if JM really feels the way he seems to or it's just part of his stalking act) the two editors have on fiction give JM the perfect opportunity. All he has to do is engage in some TTN style activity (like he's done before) and it's guarenteed to annoy White Cat. White Cat will show up afterwords and apparently RP will enforce a restraining order against White Cat. If you're going to unblock, JM needs to be banned from editing anything that's remotely related to Kurds or fiction. I have a feeling he won't feel like editing if he can't work in those two areas, but who knows. Remember that JM has shown the abiltiy to confine himself to subjects not related to White Cat's interests for weeks or months just to avoid looking like a stalker when he starts doing what he really wants. I wouldn't be surprised if he went through a one year fiction/Kurd ban just to then go after Whte Cat. He's already spent three years on this, what's one more. If a one year ban doesn't force him to create another sock puppet, then maybe he's reformed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree only to a conditional fiction ban; he's been very helpful on Dungeons & Dragons articles, which he continued to edit until he was blocked. Given as I have never seen White Cat on articles related to D&D and more on articles related to anime and such, I'd support a topic ban on anime, but not a blanket ban on all fictional-subject articles. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko)03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblocking with the extension of good faith. The latest account and edits appear to be wholly constructive and beneifical, and I am hoping that the unblocking would further lead to a continuation of that. seicer | talk | contribs03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblocking, what DMCDevit said as well as Peregrine Fisher's comment that was meant the other way, "He's already spent three years on this, what's one more." Everyone promises to be good once they are caught (oh, and they are all innocent too) and have punishment put upon them. Upon release, old habits die hard. I don't care for the unblock at all. He doesn't need the Jack Merridew account unblocked when if he truly wanted to edit and build the project, he could just start fresh and let bygones be bygones. But this brings up bygones, so I think we're being trolled. Keegantalk03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can't start fresh, Keegan; that's the problem. His original account is banned and he has a few socks (JM being his most recent and best-behaved), and in all cases White Cat has homed in on him (see this diff). I have to agree with the supporters above when they say he's been a net positive to the project as JM, ban notwithstanding. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko)04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, Jéské, I understand the letter of the law of the banning policy. No contributions of any kind, revert on site, unwelcome. Now in the spirit of the law, if a user truly just wants to edit and move on, we would never know if they were previously banned unless their old patterns of behavior show up. I hope that clarifies my point there. Keegantalk05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that, I think, is that JM has certain very obvious spheres of interest where he contributes constructively (for instance, Dungeons and Dragons articles). A new editor turning up out of the blue, obviously knowledgeable about Wikipedia and editing those articles might as well be waving a big flag saying "I am Jack Merridew", checkusers and blocks will be requested by certain editors, and we'll have another big drama and time-sink that we didn't need to have. Black Kite10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. As has been noted above, this has been going on for years and has included many accounts. Some constructive editing does not grant a free pass for serial harrassment, and I don't see anything that would suggest he has reformed -- he was just less obvious this time. I also agree with Peregrine Fisher, that the proposed restrictions would be too easy to game. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock Jack/David handled himself very well with this recent account. I'll admit, I was a bit pissed off that he had lied to us, especially when some of us came to his defense about the sock accusations, but he could have kept the lie going, but instead he chose to come clean. I know the frustration David has experienced, and while I don't think he made the right choices, it does put those choices into a certain context for me. And yeah, a few years makes a huge difference, and giving someone another chance at this point is more than reasonable. He's being open and honest with us, and is willing to work with us. This is what we want to encourage. -- Ned Scott05:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're also going to be watching him like a freakin' hawk, so it's not like he'll be able to get away with anything regarding harassment/stalking of White Cat. There is little to no risk in this unblock. -- Ned Scott05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea popped into my head: if need-be we can also give specific topical bans, if that would put White Cat or other opposers at ease. Such as specific shows, etc. -- Ned Scott05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock No-one but White Cat (who in hindsight was obviously right with his/her accusations against JM) saw a ban-worthy problem in JM. Sockpuppeting is very bad, harrassing other editors is bad, but if JM abides by these unblocking terms as his last chance, which I am sure he will, I just see his net positive increasing. The unblocking terms can also be strengthened if someone thinks they are to lax. – sgeurekat•c05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to support a Conditional Unblock if that were the consensus, but only with a 12 month topic ban on AfD participation and any popular culture which he is known not to like. Though not as disruptive as TTN, I feel further participation in this area would quickly lead to more conflict. However, I do feel he can contribute constructively to areas on Indonesia and he is excellent at formatting and wikifying. otherwise I'd have to oppose. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I will add myself to the mentorship queue as well as we were getting some productive stuff happening before all this happened. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opportunity to create one. Support unblock, no doubt he will be watched to ensure his behaviour has matured. If we are requiring Jack not to interact with White Cat, however, then we must also require the reverse from White Cate (otherwise there's the possibility of baiting etc). Neıl☎10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock with Ryan's proposed restrictions. I've had contact with Jack and I really get the sense that he wants to be here for the project. Seraphim♥Whipp10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support an unblock in the spirit of AGF. I would prefer if the user was monitored quite closely for a period deemed appropriate though, just in the interests of being sure of Merridew's true intent. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I'm assuming that such "monitoring" (perhaps that was the wrong word, I didn't mean to sound patronising, I kind of just meant "keep an eye on") will be "conducted" by Ryan, as mentor? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you can safely assume that if Jack is unblocked, a number of people will "have an eye on" his conduct. Black Kite10:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Dmcdevit. Almost everyone can reform. But all Moby Dick's activity on Wikipedia for the last 3 years demostrate that he's unable to reform. Giving him another chance would be a waste of everybody's time, and this waste is taking place here already. MaxSem(Han shot first!)11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock in that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, contingent on some probationary conditions (such as avoiding White Cat and perhaps certain areas, at least for some length of time,) and that any further disruptive behavior will lead to a one-way trip out the door. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. I believe this is at heart a constructive contributor. The exaggerated attention to WhiteCat he has shown has at least as much to do with real problematic behaviour on WhiteCat's side as with any intention of stalking on Merridew's side. Fut.Perf.☼11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked as there clearly is no longer a consensus for the original block. I'll put him under the mentorship of me and Moreschi and place him under the editing restrictions I originally quoted. Ryan Postlethwaite11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too, to the other folks above. I certainly accept the terms of this and will do my best to not disappoint folks. I would like Jéské Couriano to be formally considered to be one of my mentors as we've already discussed it in some detail. To those who've expressed reservations, I would like to offer further assurances that I will not squander this opportunity. I am well aware that I'll be monitored. I do not mind. I'll offer links to my past contributions on my user page when I rework it next. To anyone interested, there's an accounting of my accounts here. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the discussion page a few users decided that it's not fair and want to count 10 Pogrebnyaks goals, and that way making 2 top scorers. The thing is, i dont think Wikipedians are allowed to decide what's fair and whats not. An UEFA desicion, an offical one, is what counts.
P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible new sockfarm in the process of being created
Someone is going through and creating new accounts using single random nonstandard unicode characters such as these few: [12] and [13]. If you go thru the user creation log, there a dozens of these created in the last hour or so. Just something to keep an eye on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking him; some of his socks have had unusual Unicode in their names. Keep note of all the names created; if one of them shows symptoms of Potteritis, see Thatcher immediately for an IP check. -Jéské(v^_^vKaristaa Usko)04:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was just saying that it shows he is active right this second. Is there enough for a checkuser yet on these new unicode names? BTW, there have been 5-6 more since we've been chatting here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk·contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison❤04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever works for you. It took me 15 minutes just to wikifomat the list from the checkuser output so I could post it. Thatcher12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Confirmed - User:%E2%84%8B_for_Hagger (talk · contribs) - plus three other accounts. IP blocked as TOR. There are quite a few accounts being created per IP and if someone could collate the "found" ones somewhere, I'll check them for socks & block the TOR nodes - Alison ❤ 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - all the above checked. Blocked a bunch of TOR nodes as well as some more accounts - Alison ❤ 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
