Not quite sure if this is the right place to post this, but this person is vandalizing. § Eloc § 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

When has enforcing WP:NFCC#8 been called "vandalizing"? Civility is an issue, sure, but I'm not seeing the vandalism. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It "vandalizing" when the other person disagrees =). Actually, this seems related to the this discussion about User:212.32.112.152. Suggest Eloc discuss the matter there and mark this as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I noticed that there was a section in The X-Files for unofficial mythology episodes.

For those not aware, the "Mythology" episodes are specific set of episodes chosen by the creators to be of significant importance to the show's continuity, and deal with the themes of alien abduction, colonization, etc more strongly than others.

Underneath the mythology section of the article, there was a subsection for unofficial episodes, and a little blurb that went "Certain X-Files episodes were omitted from the official mythology DVD releases, even though many fans consider them to be part of the mythology.[citation needed] The following is a list of those episodes" and it went on to list various episodes that editors thought were related to the show's mythology despite not being referred to as such by the show's creators.

I removed it, stating that it was fancruft and original research. After all, who decides what should be considered mythology if the creators themselves don't? There wasn't even an opinion piece or article to back up their claims. A couple of editors agreed with me, but a lot of other editors thought it was important to the article and that the episodes themselves should count as verification.

There's a rather lengthy discussion about this here. Frankly, the whole thing is ridicilous. I have laid out the rules that the section violates, but no one is listening. I would appreciate it if an admin or someone with a better grasp on the rules could set things straight here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you want the door down the hall. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Discuss on the talk page instead of bickering here. —Kurykh 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to comment outside the archive. But I'd like somebody neutral and experienced to review user Tariqabjotu's use of admin tools here: he reduced the length of protection after he had previously given his opinions on talk, ie, involved himself in the dispute. Granted, the one month protection seemed long, but I'm not sure he was wise to take it upon himself to fix that. <eleland/talkedits> 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for commenting, but if you don't have any objection to the result of the action, why are you bringing this up? -- tariqabjotu 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask for some advice on how indefinite blocks are supposed to work? I've been reading WP:BLOCK#Indefinite blocks:

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future."

My impression was that indefinite blocks are mostly used on vandalism-only and simple disruption (trolling) accounts, but that the more normal procedure with problematic accounts that are editing the encyclopedia without vandalising (and either were, or could be, productive editors), is to warn the editor and impose a block of a definite length, relying on other admins and editors to see the previous block and reason for the block, and take this into consideration if further blocks are needed. I thought the pattern was generally to have blocks increase in length, and at some point for the editor in question to be warned that they may be indefinitely blocked the next time, and then to carry out an indefinite block if the problematic behaviour continues. What I'm actually seeing though is people jumping straight to indefinite blocks without the intermediate steps. In some cases, I think a long block of weeks or months is a better option, but I'm unclear what the general opinion is on shortening from indefinite to a long but finite block length. One question I would like answered better is where individual admins differ on when to jump straight to an indefinite block in the cases of non-vandal accounts, and how much warning is needed and of what nature? My feeling is that in most cases warnings and discussions and a block of a finite length (even if very long) should nearly always be tried before an indefinite one, but I do get the feeling that other admins are prepared to place immediate indefinite blocks on non-vandal accounts much more readily. I've recently pointed this out in several cases (in one the account was already unblocked, but in the other case the discussion has not really made much progress). I think the two mindsets can be summed up as follows:

• (A) Indefinite blocks are not a cause for concern because people can always use e-mail or the {{unblock}} template at some future point, and we should trust the unblocking admin to deal with the matter correctly. It is OK to put an indefinite block in place and then wait for signs of a change in behaviour.
• (B) Indefinite blocks should only defer a decision between a definite block length and a ban. It is better to decide on one or the other relatively soon, and if a definite block length is the decision, to reduce the indefinite block to that length, to leave a clear blocking reason, and trust future admins to see this past record and issue a longer (or indefinite) block if needed after the current block has expired.

So when is it acceptable to jump straight to indefinite blocks, and which is the better way to approach indefinite blocks? My concern with (A) is that it can leave the blocked editor feeling they need to appeal the block immediately, and it feels like the presence of the indefinite block is being used to try and force a change in behaviour (it would be better for such change to be genuine, rather than forced). It also presumes that people reform completely and become model editors following a block, when a more normal pattern is for people's behaviour to improve to a degree, and then to continue improving as they get more experienced with Wikipedia. With (B) once a block of definite length is in place, things are much clearer - the user is given a definite period of time to reflect on their behaviour and can then demonstrate they have reformed when the block has expired, as opposed to trying to demonstrate this in the wording used when asking for an unblock. I personally feel it is easier to judge someone by their actions after unblocking, as opposed to what they say in an unblock request.

I do think it is important to be consistent about the point at which we jump to an indefinite block, and how to handle it from that point onwards. Which is the better way to approach indefinite blocks? A (leave as indefinite until unblocking or shortening is thought to be OK) or B (after discussion, decide on a definite block length or turn into a ban)? And what happens if even after discussion admins disagree on what should be done? What then? If the original blocking admin insists on an indefinite block in the face of disagreement, should the onus be on those wanting an indefinite ban to open a community ban discussion? What happens when admins disagree over whether a user has reformed? Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some conditions (e.g. WP:NLT) where we clearly need to indefinite block until the matter is resolved. In other situations (e.g. a long term user who may have worn out their welcome), a long but definite block length (1 week to 1 month) while we have a community discussion about locking the door and tossing away the key is appropriate. It might be helpful to have a {{definemyblock}} that works like {{unblock}} for users who have recently indefinitely blocked, but asks for a reviewing admin to define a limited block length instead of totally undoing the block. GRBerry 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "definemyblock" template to request an admin to review the block length - but what if the reviewing admin can't decide or leaves it as indefinite - what then? But getting back to that template, what would be needed to get that up and running do you think? I think it should also include a warning that requesting a defining of a block might turn into a discussion about a community ban, and that sometimes just taking a break and returning later is better. The other thing I forgot to mention was that recently someone pointed out the "|category=" trick to turn off the categorisation into "temporary wikipedian pages" that the indef block tag does when put on user pages. Where is the best place to discuss whether that should be default behaviour, or where to put a note reminding admins to use this little trick in cases where an account has a long history of contributions and the user page should be kept as a record of who made those contributions? Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

People now seem to be using indefinite blocks on "vandal only accounts" when only a few edits are involved, and there is really no purpose. Perhaps the idea is that it closes the episode, but that is not what the policy says. As I see it, we need to maintain a gradated scale of blocking--going immediately to the final level loses the impact--it ought to be clear that it is being done as a last resort. DGG (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While looking into one such example of an indefinite block, I found a good example of another such block, one that involved just such a jump. The initial example was a block that was later undone: see here. The other (vandalism-only) example I found from a quick look down a list of blocks by that admin was this one. I apologise in advance for using these two blocks from a single admin as examples (I've notified the admin on their talk page). Please can we discuss the general applicability of the cases and what lessons (if any) can be learned (eg. tweaking of policy pages), and not whether the blocking admin was right or wrong (which seems fairly clear already). First case: (1) User:Martinlh: Five edits of a clear BLP-type nature (three removals of the sourced but possible BLP material on 13 October, 2 November, 20 November) - response was "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive SPA)" (later undone); (2) User:Declan7: Five experimental vandalism-type edits on 14 and 15 November, followed by a 24-hour block and a warning. This was followed by another such edit ("declan rules") on 20 November. Just as people sometimes feel the need to test the "anyone can edit" button, so they may feel the need to test those doing blockings ("will they catch me this time?"). It turned out the answer was yes, and the 24-hour block became indefinite (I suspect other admins might have tried another warning and short block). What puzzles me is the block log summary referring to the original 24-hour block: "I can only assume Ragib erred". The implication there is that the admin who blocked indefinitely indeed thought that the correct response would have been to block indefinitely straightaway. Clearly wrong. It is entirely possible that the person behind the "Declan7" account was only experimenting and having fun, and has no intention of editing Wikipedia again. It is also entirely possible that if this had been handled differently, the person involved might have carried on editing Wikipedia and become a productive editor. Sure, they can create a new account, but they might not bother now. This is, I think, the whole essence of what don't bite the newcomers is about. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. This seems to have got lost in the noise a bit. Is there a better place to discuss this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that my block log appears to not have been moved to my new account name, which is kinda weird since during my first rename, it was (the first block happened prior to my first renaming).[2],[3] Should/could something be done about this, e.g. "merge" the block logs? |dorftrottel |talk 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It can't be done, but thank you for your honesty. I've put a note in your block log to this effect. east.718 at 04:08, November 22, 2007

Ok, thanks, that should prevent the impression I'm trying to hide something. Still curious though that it wasn't moved along the rest of my account. All other logs appear to have been moved correctly. |dorftrottel |talk 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Block logs can't be moved with a user rename, because your username is the item being actioned in the log, rather than being the actionee. Cheers, east.718 at 04:14, November 22, 2007

Ah, that clears it up, and now that I looked, I noticed that the first block was actually 5 days after my first renaming, not before (on the occasion, I finally re-created the original Kncyu38 account to prevent impersonation).[4],[5] Thanks again, have a nice one. |dorftrottel |talk 04:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I am impressed by the efforts Dorftrottel is making to be completely open about his past history and to move on from it. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

I would like to ask if it is possible to change the size of the letters in the upper links of the Recent changes page (from This page to Challenges) from small fonts to normal fonts, according to the accessibility guidelines of Wikipedia for the visually impaired. My idea is not to adjust it for only myself by employing some more or less complicated technical trick, but to make Wikipedia pleasant for all, including the short sighted and the elderly with weaker sight. The former may adjust the css in their browsers but the letter usually do not know about such tricks and have a lot of problems because of the small letters on homepages. Could Wikipedia be friendlier towards them by avoiding too small letters? The article Wikipedia:Accessibility says: If necessary, use <small> or <big> (See: Style and markup section). My question is: are small letters really necessary here? Looking forward to your answers. --Hunadam (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For reference, I think we're looking at MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Seems like quite a few links, to me... might be helpful if we could organize or reduce the clutter, maybe? I might take a stab at it, but I'm off to bed, here, in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna, maybe we should put the topic to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? --Hunadam (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This morning I made a few additions to the "Wilhelm Steinitz" page, also trying to arrange better the images, which were somewhat scattered. In my opinion the previous article, though full of many data, was a little messy and the sections not well-arranged. In the end when I saved the page, the last sections, namely after "Contributions to chess", had disappeared. Notice that I did not work on these sections. Don't know what happened but I don't have enough experience to fix the matter myself, though it should not be difficult. Thanks for the assistance, --Gabodon (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You put ref/ instead of /ref at the end of some references, and this has the unfortunate result of hiding huge portions of the text (as they are supposedly inside the ref, instead of outside them). I have corrected it (I hope I corrected them all!). Fram (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

User:The-G-Unit-Boss moved the Albert Johnson disambiguation page to Albert Johnson (disambiguation) then redirected the Albert Johnson page to Prodigy (rapper). I redirected Albert Johnson back to the Albert Johnson (disambiguation) page but need someone who can do an overide to fix up this mess. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, i have recently been renamed from User:AFUSCO. I have recreated the account here[6] and wish to have it blocked indefinitely for my security. Thank You Alexfusco5 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also remember to disable the autoblock Alexfusco5 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; why would you recreate your old username, then ask for it to be blocked? The rename effectively removed the old account, so why bother recreating it? Shadow1 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked User:AFUSCO, though. Shadow1 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i recreated it because it says on WP:CHU that it is a good idea to recreate your old username. Also i would like to prevent users from editing with that name because i still have talk pages with my old signature on it. Also thanks for blocking Alexfusco5 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The recreation is very important to prevent someone else registering the name and vandalising; that can cause a lot of confusion, and happened recently. The block is less important because the only person with the password has no reason to edit through it anyway. --ais523 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As an example of this problem, Krimpet (talk · contribs) has been restoring disruptive posts[7], of banned editors operating through Tor nodes [8] [9]Krimpet seems to reject the idea that banned and blocked users aren't allowed to post.[10] [11]

I'd like to clarify how disruptive posts emanating from Tor nodes should be handled. I'd also like to know whether an editor is allowed to restore such posts after they have been removed by another editor. It seems like removing such posts to deny recognition is the policy a good idea, and that when an editor takes that action, it should not be reverted. Comments and advice? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One, which banned user is this alleged to be? Two, since when is Wikipedia:Deny recognition policy? Picaroon (t) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The banned user appears to be (No need to name them) or a meat puppet, but there's absolutely no way to ever know for sure because they are posting through a Tor node. We sort of have to make a best guess by the message that they are sending. Are we now going to say that banned users can do whatever they like as long as they use Tor nodes? That seems rather unwise. Additionally, I have received email correspondence that strongly suggests involvement of (No need to name them). - Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You said the same thing with 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs)... Daniel 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you proof that the user is somebody else? If so, please share the information because there was a massive disruption and Arbcom is still investigating the incident, as far as I know. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has taken the close-to-unprecedented step to investigate your own and Durova's actions and judgement in that incident via private email without opening a case, but welcoming evidence from everyone. Any information I or others have provided to ArbCom via their private mailing list is exactly that - private. It just needs to be noted that your assertions of "this is clearly MyWikiBiz" is currently not as persuasive as it could be. Daniel 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I requested the investigation myself.  ;-) Check your email, Daniel. I've sent you new evidence and CC'ed Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I requested the investigation also. And if you're not aware, Daniel, I was harassed via e-mail by a person who claimed to be that same IP. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than I do. Durova^Charge! 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was writing a reply to your post on my talk page. I would have gladly discussed this there; why did you bring this to AN/I before I got a chance to respond, other than to cause more ridiculous drama?

Removing a critical comment as "a post from a Tor node" is not policy - we don't even have a clear position on blocking Tor nodes right now. I specifically stated, multiple times, that I restored the comment because obscuring and removing discussion just feeds the trolls and gives them more nonsense to speculate on. The proper thing to do would be to let the comment stand on its own, perhaps rebut it, or just have people ignore it. Transparency is sorely needed here - it's a very effective weapon against disruption of every stripe, yet many prominent editors are taking the opposite approach. --krimpet⟲ 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I brought it here because this isn't really a disagreement between you and me. It seems to be a lack of clarity about how to handle disruptive editors using Tor nodes. I am hoping that others can provide clarity. I think letting banned users post through Tor nodes is a very, very bad idea and am hoping that the community consensus will confirm that. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of "Krimpet proxy posting for banned and blocked users operating through Tor nodes," directly accusing me of impropriety, seems to suggest that you intended me to be the primary topic of this discussion. --krimpet⟲ 03:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted 2x) Actually, Krimpet, your second restoration stated in the edit summary that you thought the blanking had been an artifact of an edit conflict - although I had specifically mentioned TOR nodes in the body of my post. That should have been quite clear, and at that point taking the matter to talk pages would have been a good idea. I haven't looked through the entire history yet, but it appears your first restoration got reverted by a different administrator. Bold-revert-discuss would have been a good idea. ArbCom has expressed who's who clauses in many decisions: when it's difficult or impossible to determine specific identities, remedies can be fashioned in ways that make identification unnecessary. Blanking those posts looked like a WP:DUCK application of WP:BLOCK. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My initial restoration of the comment was reverted by you as you added another comment, without mentioning that you were removing the comment again. This is why I restored it, assuming good faith that this removal was not intentional. --krimpet⟲ 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In that diff you cite the text of my post includes the statement Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. I'll double check, but I think the restoration you did after that was the second one. If it's an honest misunderstanding I'll certainly be glad to work things out. Hope you can see how the confusion arose. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the second restoration. Here's the first one 13 minutes earlier.[12] Now that I double check, I did reblank it myself.[13] Durova^Charge! 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to cast blame. I'd like to come to a consensus about how to handle these situations so we have no more reverting when an editor deletes a post of a banned user operating through a Tor node. If we can agree, then going forward we will have smooth sailing. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Every time I see someone citing WP:DUCK I can't help but think of Monty Python's take on the proper approach to witch hunting. Yes, someone may indeed weigh as much as a duck... but burning them for it is far more disruptive than just ignoring them would ever have been. Block accounts and IPs for what they do. Blank messages only if they contain information that should be private. The 'banned user' hunts just create big unruly mobs making a mess of things with torches and pitchforks... and that's not even counting what happens when you get it wrong. --CBD 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

please dont discrimate chinese because of some bad users. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.111.94.195 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Errm, once again, Jehochman has a rather distorted idea of Wikipedia policy! There is no rationale for reverting the non-disruptive contributions of blocked (as oposed to banned) users, nor for reverting the contributions of users editing through Tor nodes. From Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks:

"An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block."

From Wikipedia:Open proxies:

"Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked."

Even if these two policies specifically said that such edits could be reverted (as in the case of bans), which they don't outside of the imagination of two or three admions, Krimpet would have been quite within her justifiable use of administrative discretion in not reverting them for the benefit of discussion on the encyclopedia. This is a farcical thread which seems only designed to draw attention away from the controversy surrounding one of its contributors. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we no longer blocking Tor nodes on sight? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes, under Wikipedia:Open proxies. There is even a bot available to do it, should the Community wish that. However, we do not revert non-disruptive edits made through these nodes before they are blocked. Disruptive edits may, of course, be reverted under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing wherever they come from! Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned users posting through Tor nodes[edit]

Back to business. We are talking about what to do when a banned user posts through a Tor node. Obviously checkuser cannot determine whether it's a banned user or not because Tor nodes anonymize the source. Hence, we must look at the content of the post. When a post appears from a Tor node that looks like the same message being pushed by a banned user, can that message be removed? I say yes because we obviously don't want to give banned users a free pass to post whatever they like through Tor nodes. Any other comments? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the post; block the ip. In general, any post can be removed. Posts by banned users should be removed, and may not be restored. Nobody has to enforce a ban, but nobody gets to prevent enforcement either. I don't know to what extent checkuser tells us anything about Tor users. Tor or not, it never infallibly identifies the editor. A somewhat seperate issue, Tor nodes are blocked on sight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So if an edit summary indicates the removal of a banned user's post, that post should not be restored without some sort of clarification or discussion with the editor who performs the removal in good faith. Right? If an editor restores posts of a purportedly banned user without any agreement that it's not a banned user, then the editor is effectively proxying for a banned user. Does that view reflect the consensus? - Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just make it clear what's happening. The issue of Tor nodes is a red herring in this argument; if I were banned, "rv banned user Jpgordon" (for example) should be a sufficient note to other editors not to restore the edit without discussion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not be a license for admins to revert edits which they don't like. If there is evidence of disruption, of course those edits should be reverted: if there is no evidence of disruption, administrators would be better spending their time helping out at WP:AIV, CAT:CSD or many other pages where there really is disruption, rather than trying to fit the post to the troll. Physchim62 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Physchim62, you restored a post by banned user Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs) to your talk page. [14] Earthenwareboat (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock in the sequence of Earthenboat (talk · contribs) and Earthboat (talk · contribs). Those are known socks of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs), who is banned. You might want to remove that post. Jpgordon is the one who seems to have tagged Earthboat. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my case, Durova simply started blocking and after realizing that she did not have the right banned user, she went with another one, also wrong. Since I am not in any trouble with WP; I am not using a TOR anything, why does she or anyone have a right to block me, take away my posts and hurt innocent people around me? Songgarden, Deutschland. 11-19-07 217.81.37.228 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For God's sake, people! They are laughing their asses of at us! Here we are arguing whether it's OK to remove trolling form a Tor node if we are not entirely sure it's a banned user, and we have a policy that says using Tor is verboten - anyone who wants to contribute to the debate can do so using their Wikipedia account, it's free to register and if they are blocked or banned then they can... do the other thing. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As Jpgordon said, the Tor question is a distraction; banned users are banned users. And as Tom Harrison said, "in general, any post can be removed". This is the important part. Tor or not, banned or not, it doesn't matter; if a post is disruptive, remove it. This is common sense that I think pretty much everyone here agrees with, right? WP:BAN allows for the removal of banned editors' posts; it does not prohibit the removal of other disruptive posts! Guy, I'm afraid that even you are eyeing this red herring like it's a delicious treat. It is not against the rules for constructive editors to use Tor. We just block Tor due to its potential for abuse by destructive users. This distinction is subtle but important; if it's overlooked, we'll end up punishing good users who manage to use Tor even though they aren't breaking the rules. ··coelacan 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy hit the nail on the head. This is absolutely ridiculous. And for the record, I find User:Physchim62 and User:Daniel's comments to be uncivil, unhelpful, and unnecessary. Jehochman and Durova are doing their jobs, and it's shamefully petty of you to inject your biases and personal ouchies with them into a simple policy enforcement issue. This sort of thing is getting all too common. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been active for a while (okay, a little longer). I was surprised to hear of a user being indefinitely blocked for vandalism for recreating an autobio about himself (as well as some of his friends). His claimed achievements are personally remarkable -- I do not know of many rappers who get their bachelor's degrees at the age of 18 -- though I would agree that whether that info is encyclopedically notable is another matter. Of course everyone thinks their band is notable or deserves recognition, but is repeated creation of such content vandalism?

I should at least think such matters should be classified properly as a content dispute. The user might deserve a block, but I think it would send the wrong message to indefinitely block a person for vandalism when he was vain (and yes, consensus-violating) at worst. The user was not intentionally bearing malice against the encyclopedia, and the user seemed intelligent enough to demand an AfD for one of his articles. Besides the issue of the rationale given for the block, the length of the block is another. Horror forbid that I be one of the "Old Guard", but there was a time when administrators were very, very careful with applying indefinite blocks. Maybe "24 hours cooling off time" is seen as too light now. I hope this place has not grown so big that it has grown cold and insensitive to the situation of each misguided user. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, repeatedly doing anything that you've been repeatedly warned against is vandalism. Indefblock would seem pretty unusual to me in such a situation, though, unless the account matched the pattern of a known repeat vandal. 24 hours would be a lot more common. On the other hand, I'm not really an admin who specialises in blocking, as you can tell from my actions log... --ais523 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I had the impression from WP:VAN that vandalism was "repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia". The only part I see here that describes this user's case is "repetitively". In contrast, under the "what vandalism is not" section, I see, "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such."

In any case, I am wondering whether to go ahead and unilaterally commute this user's block. I am just confused because one sysop indefinitely blocked him; the user appealed and two other sysops reviewed the request and denied it both times, so I was unsure whether the policy consensus had changed that much. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who blocked him, and although I did it based on my understanding of how the policy worked (full set of warnings and continued reposting of a speedied article after those warnings) I haven't been an administrator long enough to be absolutely certain that what I did was right. I doubt I ever will. In fact, I will happily relinquish this situation to anyone who cares to commute the block, without complaint, because I think this situation may have engaged my emotions a little more than is perhaps appropriate and my judgment may have been affected. That's the reason why I took the article to AfD (well, actually, it was because the creator asked me to rather than speedying it, but I thought it was best to get more opinions) and I mentioned there that that was the case. I still do hope to learn from this situation and, who knows, we might be able to get some useable content... I'm pessimistic, but not ruling it out. Whatever happens, if someone unblocks him, I'm keeping my hands entirely off anything to do with this user as much as possible. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, don't self-deprecate yourself, I appreciate your judgment. But it was just that I noted one block on his block log, and that was indefinite. It's just that I would have given a 24-hour (or maybe a 7-day block) first. I was unsure whether the blocking policy had changed. Reading from WP:INDEF, I read, "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion."

So the question is: was this user's disruption significant? It was definitely persistent, but it was nothing like that of a "on Wheels!" malicious vandal for instance. At worst, he just created a few vanity pages. So here I go, commuting this person's block to 24 hours, since there has been little objection (unlike the topic below!) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. You sysop folk seem a knowledgeable lot, and I don't know where to go. I've dreamed up a crazy new idea for a central page letting wiki-elves to be know different places they could help out. How/where/when/why/what/who should I ask/talk to/tell/do? Ideally it will have links from appropriate pages in WikiProjects, other Wikipedia: pages, etcetera. The final destination envisaged is Wikipedia:Volunteer. Please reply on that talk page. -Pumpmeup 22:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the afd discussion for this article as per no consensus, but when I've tried to remove the afd tag, it didn't worked because of a filter. Can somebody else try to remove it. Looks more likely a spam protection filter error as no links were touched, removed or added, nor were there recent contributions to the page. I'm not registered at all to WikiMedia. --JForget 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I deactivated the blacklisted link. MER-C 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MER-C --JForget 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfD for this article was opened over a week ago and there have been no comments in the last seven days. Maybe time to close/relist? [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Afd Discussion as being closed as delete. --JForget 02:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I've posted a proposal to partially open up the oversight logs to administrators. Please comment here. Thanks! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Parriswolfe has been editing Bullying and Workplace bullying for the past day or so (also using a couple of anon IP User:99.232.193.242 but with no real intent to deceive by so doing that I can see) she began by trying to post her own site, on a freeserver, as a citation and from there has progressed to POV pushing. It seems she is involved in a campaign to change Canadian law on some aspect of workplace bullying and sees the whole topic in terms of that and fervently believes Wikipedia should be a vehicle for that change. I have tried...she even got pretty abusive with me by email...I think she is, essentially, a good faith editor, she just needs somebody with better communication skills than me to explain how Wikipedia works and why she cannot use it to launch her campaign. --Zeraeph (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone try telling her about WP:SOAP? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tried the whole of WP:NOT but didn't try that specific yet. Will now. But it is more as though she has the whole topic reinterpreted in terms of her own campaign and research, it's really rather odd IMHO --Zeraeph (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've exchanged e-mail with her, too. I don't think it's doing much good, though. :( I remain hopeful that she will change her ways but her current efforts are disruptive even if they are well-intentioned. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph - You are correct I do need someone with better communication skills to explain how to change a link - I think the brochure advertising services link should be removed and reset to the related research. To-date every time I have reset the link to Namie's actual report from 2003 you switch it back to the sales brochure.

http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/WBIbrochure.pdf this link does not go to a research study that supports what it is citing.

however this one does - http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2003results.pdf - Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces October 2003 by Gary Namie

The Occupation Health and Safety Act links: You keep putting a link to a guide to "interpret" the Act, not the actual updated act. Wikipedia it viewed publicly as a place to review actual factual information. Thus the actual document of the Act is more substantial than a guide. Please locate in the actual Act where "psychology harassment" or "Bullying" is covered. If you can not support your findings with either the actual act or the name and phone number of your source at OOHS then you should not put it on Wikipedia as an Act that protects again "bullying".

here is the link to the act http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/workplace_violence.html Workplace Violence] Ministry of Labor, Ontario, Canada.

Parriswolfe (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)______

you put on the "Bullying" discussion board that those of use on a "freeserver" are less creditable than some one on a paid hosting domain -

"The person with no credibility here is you, particularly when you keep removing a thoroughly verified link to a Government site on the grounds that bullying is restricted to psychological harm.

Gary Namie is named, qualified, peer reviewed, and has his own domain, you are using a freeserver to promote your own ideas, as is the unnamed owner of the other site you refer to. Please stop vandalising the article. If you are as serious about your work as you say then I am sure you can find reliable, verifiable, academic sources to cite in support of your point in accord with WP:RS. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)"

How do you substantiate this fact as truth?

I asked you to provide the name of your source in my e-mail -

here are our e-mails - let your peer read for them selves.

(E-mails removed. Oversight needed? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Please can read and make there own minds up Parriswolfe (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Tamara Parris

Just to let my fellow admins know, I've recently had some success with stopping "... is gay" type vandals without resorting to the block button (handy especially when they're posting from a school IP etc) by leaving a talk page message headed something along the lines of GAY vandalism

My rationale was that anyone who thinks that describing someone/thing as "gay" is an insult would be embarrassed by the word showing up in big letters on their talk page.

I've not done this enough times yet to make the results statistically relevant, but early results are promising. --Dweller (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is hilarious. I should try that too. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not it's not hilarious. It's gay:)--victor falk 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing, but I don't see how this would stop anyone since people who are vandalizing aren't typically worried about how their Talk page looks. --David Shankbone 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But they are likely to be highly embarrassed to have the orange bar come up and anyone in class see just how "gay" they have been here. Always thought it an odd term of abuse myself, though. "Straight" would be far more insulting. There would be nothing worse that I could imagine than someone saying "Redvers is just like 90% of the population! Ner-ner ner ner-ner!" Insult me however you like, but don't call me boring. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange bar like when you get a new message? Is there a screen shot somewhere one can see how it looks like? "Redvers is like 90% of the population. He thinks he's not straight":)... --victor falk 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a shot. JuJube (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like the idea - "gay vandalism" sounds just like the kind of homophobic "... is gay" comments we are trying to stop. DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it might seem like it, which is ironic and unfortunate. If I put "GAY" vandalism that should address even the appearance of impropriety on my part, as I'm moving from the ambiguous use of an adjective to a quote. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds better - and I would like to make it clear that I never thought for a moment that there was any hint of impropriety on your part. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Heck, don't worry. That's useful feedback. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that 2005 Rose Bowl and several similar articles fits WP:CSD#A3 or another WP:SPEEDY reason? -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a small amount of content but the context is clear. There may be an argument for a merge/redirect to Rose Bowl. Catchpole (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

another comment For future reference: questions of this type can be taken to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. In my opinion, the article really doesn't fit the WP:CSD process in general because it is a potentially controversial deletion; I believe there used to be a statement to this effect in WP:CSD ... I'll drop a note on the talk page there to ask about that, because I think it should be there. To address the question of specific speedy deletion criteria: It does not fit WP:CSD#A3; I've had at least one conversation in the past (sorry for not putting a link here) about whether articles that consist entirely of transcluded or subst'd templates are covered under A3 and I believe there is a leaning toward the feeling that if the templates are substantially filled in that A3 does not apply; however, I don't think there is is a strong consensus position on this point. In the specific case of 2005 Rose Bowl, the WP:CSD#A1 criterion might apply as there is no contextual statement that would provide information for someone unfamiliar with American Football information on what the content means. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It technically meets the criteria, but this is an obviously notable topic so I don't think it's very productive to delete the article. Hopefully someone will add prose before too long... --W.marsh 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion moved - Please direct all other comments to this thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

217.206.25.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently anon-only blocked and account creation blocked (and has previous). He is now refactoring his talk page to include obscenities and gloating that "ban didn't work". I reported it at AIV, but a bot removed it because of the existing block. DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed by Dweller. Pedro :  Chat  13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, WP:RFPP would be the place for a request like this since the page needs to be protected. Metros (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please will someone with more experience around here than I (which wouldn't be difficult) take a look at the request for guidance at: Talk:History of IBM#First Party Content Creation.

The message is from an IBM person who might be able to provide Wikipedia with much useful information and citations about IBM, but is unsure of the protocol.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Articles was deleted at editor's request more than 24 hours before I added this template. Nothing more to be seen here. -- llywrch (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Esskater11/Dirty images Somebody's using us as a server for naughty pics, and inviting others to add them --Orange Mike 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of those images have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons more than two years ago in some cases. Image:Aktfoto-2.jpg, Image:Orgasm.jpg, and Image:Keeani Lei 3.jpg are all examples of images that are free and whatnot. The only thing is that Wikipedia is not censored, and if someone needs to use such an image in an article in any language. He hasn't uploaded any of those images and he is merely suggesting that if someone finds an image that is not on his page, then they can add it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're all duly licensed... I'm a fierce defender of WP:CENSOR myself, so I won't complain. Somebody had brought the question up on a help page, so I thought this was the venue to bring it to. --Orange Mike 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any disruption to the encyclopedia stemming from this page's existence. It is rather bizarre, using Wikipedia to store your porn, but as Ryulong points out, we aren't censored. If desired, a MfD discussion could be filed (under WP:NOT#BLOG, File Storage areas), but otherwise the best course of action is to let it be. Anthøny 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable use of User-space at all. The point of uploading pictures is to contribute to the encylopedia. This use violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Also, the items on Commons mentioned above are only linked to User pages on en.wikipedia. The point of Commons is to provide storage space for re-use of images in articles, not on user pages. I agree with WP:NOT#CENSOR, but insisting that things like this contribute substantively to article content is a completely different matter from tolerance via WP:NOT#CENSOR. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those images are of clear encyclopedic value. If they are all free images, I see no harm in having them here. Has anybody discussed the images with the user? Jeffpw (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ceyockey. I don't see much need for a page of someone's favorite dirty photographs off the Commons. Awhile back I became dismayed by the proliferation of amateur camera phone cock shots and self-promotional porn pics that were proliferating on the body part articles. In an attempt to "raise the bar" I asked a model friend of mine if I could photograph his body for Wikipedia, which gave rise to User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts (several photos have been removed for reasons as they relate to my other work on Wikipedia). Something like that contrasts with what seems like a "Wikifilth" blog on a User page (several of my photos are found on that blog). I'm extremely against censorship on Wikipedia, but I think User sub pages should have a purpose that advances either a person's work on Wikipedia, showcases their work or advances the Project in some way. I have no problem with people making political views or other things known on their User page since I think it aids us in understanding their perspective and edits. But not a gallery of "I like T&A and here's some dirty photos." I also think that some of those photos on that page have no encyclopedic value and should be deleted if they are not being employed on one of the projects. --David Shankbone 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike. As long as all the images are properly licensed (which they actually may not be, some of them have logos for other sites), then I see nothing wrong with it. GlassCobra 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

another one? Eh generaly not a problem athough a fair number of such pics tend to turn out to be copyvios.Geni (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup just deleted one from commons.Geni 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Geni's approach is the best one to take about this: if the images are copyvios, remove them. If this leaves enough open-source pr0n to raise a concern... well, as long as the user's collection is not disruptive, I don't see that it's worth the effort to remove this page from userspace. And seeing how it's simply a collection of image links, without any commentary, I don't find it disruptive -- although I'm underwhelmed at the kinds of "dirty pictures" this fellow has found on commons. (Two girls hugging each other is a "dirty picture"? IMHO, they look silly, not erotic.) He'd be better off subscribing to something like the venerable usenet group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica -- or whatever replaced it nowadays. -- llywrch (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:FT2 has boldly deleted the page in question; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Esskater11/Dirty_images. Basically there's little chance of reaching a consensus on something like this when anyone can be WP:BOLD and impose their will on the community. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

...and I've boldly undeleted it and sent it to MfD, as I believe it might in fact have more than a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. Let's continue the discussion there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As I stated before, some of the photos have clear encyclopedic value (I'm thinking of the antique ones). Jeffpw (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Policy reminders: just reminding people of some policies here, I see some might have been misunderstood
• The policy titles may be misleading for example "Wikipedia:not censored" does not mean none of the pages on wikipedia are censored, it only applies to articles and images (re-read the policy if you don't believe me), for the policy on how user pages are censored please see WP:UP#Inappropriate content. Personally I disagree with this policy, however it is policy so we must abide by it, and avoid by any "widespread offense". This means for example user pages must abide by Islam which forbids representation of anything on earth or in heaven. (The Christian and Jewish old testament also forbids this, however due to the evolution of drawing techniques since Moses, it doesn't take into account most modern drawing techniques only carving or sculpting to my knowledge. )According to the policy we should also be aware of the laws of the PROC. When adding content to user pages we must be careful not to land Chinese people in jail for reading it, as it is likely this would cause "offense" to them.
• Also the deletion by User:FT2 was against policy, for a page to be speedy deleted it must meet one of the criteria listed on WP:CSD, however he did not say which one he was applying, and as far as I can see none apply. (note: the "article" category can't be used for user pages). Jackaranga (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Um could someone just go and re delete it? Seriously i was just waiting for it to be deleted anyway, Esskater11
  • Page speedy deleted under WP:CSD#U1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Where did Esskater11 make the request? I can't seem to find it... --ElKevbo (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• In the discussion. Oh, and two lines above you! Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Carry on then! :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm coming late, but I very strongly feel that deleting this page is very inappropriate and has been so for the only reason that the picture are arguably "pornographic". Suppose one wants to contribute to pornography articles? Recently I made a picture gallery in the Felsic#Picture_gallery article and I intend to the same in mafic. Suppose I'd have a page userpage:victor falk/pictures/stones as a convenient way for overviewing, on what grounds should that page be deleted? Even if I had a bizarre sexual stone fetish? If I was an admin, I'd immediately undelete this page and leave a notice on the user's talk page to the effect that "i've undeleted the page per [this argument]; if you really want it deleted just say so." I'd prefer not to have to fill a formal DRV, but continue the discussion here for convenience's sake.--victor falk (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it is not inappropriate to delete in a user's subspace when the user requests it, as is what happened here. --Deskana (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I know. I haven't check the user, his contributions, still less the page in question and I don't want to (tough I checked his talk page, red-linked, I think at very least it is courteous to engage people when it's potentially sensitive like that). I don't contest this particular deletion, it's for principle's sake. That he has requested its deletion indicates he indeed used it as a porn collection, but that's irrelevant. Check out ejaculation's talk page, there is a father complaining that his twelve-year old daughter had it bookmarked. Whatever one may feel about that (I personally think that man is rather naïve), it is absolutely clear that wikipedia has no business in controlling whatever purposes users and editors use it for.--victor falk 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This means for example user pages must abide by Islam which forbids representation of anything on earth or in heaven. (The Christian and Jewish old testament also forbids this, however due to the evolution of drawing techniques since Moses, it doesn't take into account most modern drawing techniques only carving or sculpting to my knowledge.)

Is just wrong, both in regard Wikipedia policy, and in regard Christian and Jewish traditions and law. It's clear that it's quite allowable to make "graven images" in the Jewish Bible; it's just not permitted to worship them. Whether it is permitted to make them so that someone else can worship them is another matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by size

User             Edits   bytes of tot
-------------------------------------
BenB4	           91	586916	24%
146.115.58.152, 
67.98.206.2	   38	545810	22%
Privatemusings	   56	448837	18%
Miltopia	   16	140747	6%
WAS 4.250	   15	131911	5%
Semiprivatemusings, 
MOASPN	            6	112243	5%
Random832	    9	 83492	3%
Alecmconroy	    8	 70204	3%
Will Beback	    7	 67625	3%
Dtobias	            4	 36202	1%
Neil	            3	 30863	1%
GTBacchus	    3	 26001	1%
DHeyward	    3	 25432	1%
Bfigura	            2	 18680	1%
David Gerard	    2	 18092	1%
Mangoe	            2	 17702	1%
Hoplon	            2	 17653	1%
It.wiki:Twilight    2	 17390	1%
Squee23	            1	 10394	0%
Raymond arritt	    1	 10323	0%
JzG	            1	 10111	0%
JoshuaZ	            1	  9924	0%
CBDunkerson	    1	  8620	0%
Tom harrison	    1	  7804	0%
86.148.219.194	    2	    72	0%
----------------------------------
Total	         303   2453048	

I don't care who this guy is or what the circumstances are. Violation of WP:CIVIL is not acceptable and should not be allowed whether you are a newbie, an anonymous user, an admin, or God himself. Likewise with abuse of admin tools in a dispute you're involved in. BTW, as this discussion is obivously ongoing, someone should probably remove the archive thingie. 23:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrainor (talk • contribs)

I'm here to request the block of IP, 72.171.0.146; as he keeps on vandalizing biographies of living persons. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the venue my friend. No vandalism in 30 minutes so not blocked. I'll watch it. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Australian federal election, 2007 is being held today, and it's been an incredibly bruising campaign. Admins associated with recent changes patrol may wish to note this in light of any edits they see on Government or Opposition figures, parties or candidates, with special regard for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - we have all the main ones watchlisted but might miss something obscure going on in the dark corners. Thanks :) Orderinchaos 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I love elections :/ ... — Thomas H. Larsen 01:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. Currently Australian federal election, 2007 is semiprotected until tomorrow, although as of this moment I've seen a fair amount of recent editing at Maxine McKew and Kevin Rudd (latter semi'd, but plenty of aged accounts). Special:Recentchangeslinked/Australian_federal_election,_2007 is a decent place to watch, if you're not sure what to look for. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that a lot of editors (anons and some established editors) have been editing various articles to put Kevin Rudd in as Prime Minister. The Australian political system leaves about a week and a half after polling day before the change of Prime Minister. I have had to protect Prime Minister of Australia and other pages have seen this editing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Prime Minister of Australia and Australia need full protection the other article should be open and let "anyone edit" as much a possible with short protection if the edit wars get to heated. I'd also be cautious before blocking established editor for 3RR violations. Gnangarra 11:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Template:Prime Ministers of Australia as well. --Carnildo (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Full protection for that one there nothing to edit until sworn in by GG, 10-14 days away. Gnangarra 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to ask for input from administrators on an issue which I think I may be encountering. The sockpuppetry policy has changed and been disputed so much recently that I cannot make a positive determination myself.

Is it a prohibited use of an alternate account to !vote in RfA's with what some would consider a disruptive manner (continuing on disputes and bad blood, no evidence despite being requested to provide it), while editing actively with another account (and participating in other RfA's with the other account)? In particular, given the reasons for !voting at the particular RfA's have been disputed and discredited as absured etc. (even by bureaucrats, if I recall correctly), is it permissable to use one account to !vote in a way which reflects badly on that user casting it, while maintaining a "good" account to support other RfA's? Especially when the "good" account looks like it's being primed for an RfA itself while the other account has failed RfA's in the past and now sits dormant except for these disruptive/contentious/"absured"/controversial !votes?

Furthermore, would everyone feel it is a justifiable use of checkuser to confirm a link between the two accounts (for accountability purposes), even if such a link did not result in blocks? I have no desire to block or take action the alternate account as it is doing good work (as I said, it seems to be being primed for a RfA), but I'm wondering whether people think such a link should be confirmed for the purpose of accountability in the future.

Cheers, Daniel 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, if a person's currently active "good hand" account is indeed being a good hand, it would be best to block the person's semi-dormant "bad hand" account. However, as I've also said before, you cannot determine with an absolute degree of certainty that certain discrete behavioral "hats" users wear (e.g., "wikipedia hats" on wikipedia; "IRC hats" on IRC) will not one day be worn simultaneously. For now, I say take no action unless that person's current "good hand" account starts editing in patterns similar to that of that person's "bad hand" account. Regards, —Animum (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My contestion is that this user would surely garner opposes at their own RfA for the comments made under the "bad" account because of their nature. However, because there's no link between the "good" and the "bad", this accountability is lost and therefore the "bad" account has basically got a free license to say what it pleases without bringing back (quite rightful) opposes onto it's "good" RfA. I'm merely wondering if others share the view I have that this break in accountability is not on. Daniel 04:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the main account should make those comments itself or the bad-hand account stop making them: If you don't have the cajones to do so under an untarnished name, don't do it. Period. —Animum (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my opinion :) Daniel 04:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be very concerned about the suitability of an editor to be an admin who holds a bad hand account. Disclosure of such an account would be expected (at least by me) at RfA, and I would suggest that the failure to disclose such an account would be grounds for desysopping if discovered later. Perhaps the previous suggestion that all RfA candidates be checkusered is a good idea (if it is not already being done on the sly.) - Crockspot (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been done, although I wish to have it done if consensus here suggests it's wrong for this person to be using these two accounts in this fashion. The user has also shown no inclination to disclose the account, either. Daniel 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, it is a matter of trust. I have an alternate account that I was considering eventually running for RfA. My user page discloses this account, but the alternate account's user page does not. So I guess you could call that a discrete disclosure. There are many checkusers who participate in RfA, and I suspect (and hope) that at least one of them checks out candidates. I would not feel comfortable running that account for RfA without disclosure at the RfA, and I would expect to be outed if I did not. - Crockspot (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the differences are you didn't use this other account solely for disrupting RfA's with pointless opposes which have drawn extensive criticism, and also you declared it some way (this user hasn't even acknolwedged they've moved on to a new account on any forum, despite having a Commons RfA under both usernames and establishing themselves to the point of closing AfD's here). Daniel 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In such a case, I would say that it needs to be disclosed, whether voluntarily or not. We don't need admins who cannot be trusted. - Crockspot (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that RfA opposes, in general, are disruptive, in that following many opposes are comments full of indignation, abrasion, etc. At the same time, however, they can be constructive. But nonsense, widely disupted or discredited oppose votes are disruptive without any constructive purpose. I think that sockpuppet accounts used to make such votes should be considered "bad hand" accounts and blocked. That said, I don't think that the sockmaster should be publicly connected with the sockpuppet, at least on a first occurence - I would prefer a strong admonition from similarly disrupting RfA in the future, and a warning that future occurences will be revealed. --Iamunknown 05:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy on alternate accounts pretty clearly states that using them to avoid scrutiny is a bad thing. I consider all socks as being the same person; just because someone is helpful under one name and a jerk under another one, the person is still a jerk. If they don't want the link between accounts to be documented, perhaps they should, I dunno... not be disruptive. Once they start using a "good hand/bad hand" relationship with their accounts, what the person wants becomes irrelevant, as what is best for the project is paramount. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and will be opposing this user's RfA if/when it comes based on his/her actions with the alternate account. However, the issue is complicated as both users are sufficiently established, although one has become inactive since "retiring" and is now merely used as a RfA opposer on very shaky reasoning (and questionable motives in a number of cases), really. This further added to my concern about what action should be taken, given the nature of both accounts as estbalished Wikipedians. Daniel 06:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I revamped the sockpuppetry policy. The whole thrust of that policy is that it relates to the use of two accounts where that use has some causal connection. Without a causal connection between the two accounts, the sockpuppetry policy doesn't really apply. If you don't know of a link between the two alternate accounts, I don't think checkuser is appropriate if neither account is bad enough to block. If a person is use one account to !vote in a way which reflects badly on that user casting it while maintaining a "good" account to support other RfA's and you are aware of the link between the two accounts, there are ways to look at the use of both accounts to present a claim of a causal connections. In any event, the sockpuppetry policy now only requires a consensus that misuse has occurred. It does not require actual proof that misuse occurred and there is no requirement that the actual misuse be particularly identified. If someone is helpful under one name and a jerk under another one, the person is still a jerk and consensus is not going to put up with such crap. While consensus might not be able to articulate exactly what is wrong with the person's use of the alternate account, consensus need only say that they don't like what that person's been doing and that they are putting a stop to it by ending that person's privilege to use alternate accounts. Message: You can be a jerk with one account but you can't be a jerk and have multiple accounts. -- Jreferee t/c 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of proving that they are both operated by the same person — the user has conceded as much, via private email (even when I didn't name names here, they still sent me an email about it asking me to stop being a so-and-so or words to that effect). I was just wondering if consensus thought it's a legitimate use or not, to have one account for using at RfA to say things the user doesn't want to say with their currently-being-primed-for-RfA-or-at-least-it-seems-that-way good account. Daniel 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You know how consensus works: Consensus is as consensus does. For this person, consensus might determine that such use is misuse and remove their alternate account privileges. For a different person, consensus might determine that such use is not misuse. Consensus gives admin tools to one person and denies admin tools to another person. It is that unknown that is designed to keep people in line and striving to be civil. As stated in the policy, the consensus needs to run five days and be closed by an admin using top and bottom templates. You can run the consensus anywhere, but I haven't figure out where the best place for such a discussion would be. Perhaps RfC might be a good place. I'll set the discussion up if you want. -- Jreferee t/c 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My first response would be to inform the editor that should he run for RFA, you will oppose on your stated grounds and you will make your reasoning known early and often. However, given the recent disruptions of RFAs over similar allegations, it might be best to punt this to Arbcom. Forward them your speculations and confirming emails and ask them to contact the editor privately and advise the editor to avoid seeking adminship without their consent, to avoid public disclosure and opposition. Thatcher131 06:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the user emailed me after I added this thread and asked me to leave him alone, I'm pretty sure he's aware of what I'll do. I was skeptical of forwarding this to the ArbCom as I wasn't aware whether consensus considered it abusive enough. In addition, it isn't as abusive as if the user was !vote-stacking. However, I will do so of course if consensus here says ArbCom should deal with it privately. Daniel 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's never a bad idea to ruin things like this past the arbitrators. In general they are far enough from the daily fights on Wikipedia as to make their opinion independent, and they have access to CheckUser and other tools. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)