Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:53, 14 October 2005

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Decius

User:Alexandru (aka User:Decius) by User:Jtkiefer with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry and adding insulting and bad edit summaries). +MATIA ☎ 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please see User talk:Alexandru for further discussion. I don't know the details, but it appears he tried changing his username rather than sockpuppeting. Perhaps this block needs to be shortened. - Mgm| 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am looking at this myself and it is a name change (since I think it is currently disabled). Maybe the block should also be shortened/lifted and I also think we should at least have a board/page where name changes are announced. Zach (Sound Off) 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that Decius (talk · contribs) would like to use the username 'Alexandru', but that the name was already taken. Since the original Alexandru (talk · contribs) only made a half-dozen edits to a single article back in January, Decius wants to take over the account...? Unfortunately, while Decius is signing his comments as 'Alexandru'–his signature links there–his edits are still under the name 'Decius'...which makes attribution and figuring out who's who a mess.

Decius has also decided to try and squat on the username 'Spider-Man'. Once again another user (Spider-Man (talk · contribs) had already claimed that name, making approximately twenty-five edits back in June.

Given Decius' habit of writing abusive edit summaries ('However, once again all I have to say to you people is: "Suck my dick. Y'all bitch ass niggas ain't shit to me. It's fun fucking shit up around here, when you least expect it. "') and his inability to settle on a user name (or pick usernames that haven't already been taken) someone probably needs to take him aside and explain how things actually work around here. Until that happens, he should probably remain blocked. Nasty edit summaries and impersonation of other editors (deliberate or not) are not good things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

sigh See also this edit, where he attempts to claim User:Alexandros has his own. (Alexandros is the old username of AlexPlank.) He also has claimed the user pages of the currently non-existent

• Iron Man
• Lord Marshal
• The Five Star General

Kate says he has more than 2600 edits to User space, so I might have missed a few. He's got more than seven thousand edits to each of article and article talk space; does anybody know if he's a useful contributor who doesn't use preview, or what? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm Anittas and I'm here to defend Decius. All accusations made towards Decius, except for the nasty comments one, are false. This is what user:Jtkiefer, the one who blocked Decius, accused him of:

• sockpuppeting;
• personal attacks;
• disruption;
• vandalism; and
• sockpuppeting, again

I argued against all accounts mentioned there, because:

• Decius did not sickpuppet anything. He did not use his two nicknames to vote against any case. He announced to the community that he changed his nickname, from Decius to Alexander, because he was tired of people thinking he had a relation to the ethnicity of Emperor Decius, ie., being Albanian; however, since most people knew him by his original pseudonym - that is, Decius - he kept the nickname;

• The only personal attacks that I know of, which Decius admitted of committing, was calling another moderator for a Wiki-Geek - and that was a long time ago; and insulting a bot in a sarcastic way. Since a bot is not a person, it cannot be taken as a personal attack;

• It depends how Wiki defines disruption, but yes, I agree that Decius was being annoying in his edits on his personal talk-page. He admitted that, too;

• I have not seen any proof of Decius vandalizing any page;

• Sockpuppeting: see the first argument.

I presented all of this to JTkiefer. He did not present any proof of his accusations towards Decius. Instead, he said this, on my talk-page:

"check the edit summaries here Those alone are enough to warrant a perm ban"

I disagreed with Jtkiefer that such edits deserve a permanent ban and I kindly asked him to unban Decius. So far, no reply. Decius has been a contributor to Wiki with his 5000 edits, and growing. He has been offered an adminship, which he turned down. JTkiefer, on the other hand, nominated himself to the 2005 Arbitration Committee elections. From what I know, JTkiefer didn't warn Decius, nor did he try to talk to him. I would like Decius to be unbanned; if this doesn't happen, I would like to know what steps I need to take in order to appeal against this decission.

Related links:

• Anittas asking Jtkiefer to unban Decius
• Jtkiefer replying on Anittas's talk-page
• Decius aka Alexandru arguing his case

--Anittas 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

guys, Decius/Alexandru is a valuable contributor. He can be disruptive/abusive and of course should be duly blocked when he is, after fair warning. Jtkiefer has no call to play arbcom and issue permanent bans on contributors. He should warn, then block briefly, then block for periods up to one month, at most. Anything else is up to the arbcom. Therefore I expect Jtkiefer or any other admin to reset Decius' block to something within the letter of policy. If Jtkiefer alleges that Decius is "sockpuppeteering" he hasn't even looked into the case, Decius has never tried to hide his identity when using the Alexandru account. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Above remark posted by 213.3.75.178 (talk · contribs). I've left a note on Dbachmann's talk page asking him to clarify if he's back from wikivacation now. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

alright, since I'm here I can also log in briefly; it doesn't matter who above comment is coming from though, mind you, it is just a call to adhere to policy. dab (ᛏ) 18:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just didn't want to see someone impersonating you while you were on vacation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is not one of sockpuppeteering—I don't really see evidence to suggest that, though I haven't delved too deeply. The problem is that Decius has adopted the username of another–actually two other–Wikipedians. Though the confusion is probably not deliberate, Decius' is effectively impersonating another editor and assuming their identity. What if the real Alexandru comes back? If Decius wants to change his username to something that isn't already claimed by another editor, then there's no difficulty. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

sure, talk to him, warn him, rfc his ass, block him for a day or two over his tasteless summaries, but I am objecting to Jtkeifer's permaban here. 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a few questions about nicknames on Wiki:

1. How can someone claim a nickname which is already in use? No one can claim the nickname "Anittas", so long I keep it. Correct? If I abandon my nickname, then anyone can claim it. So, if the user who first had the nickname of "Alexander" abandoned his nickname, anyone can claim it. Am I wrong?

2. If someone changes their nickname, say, from X to Y; will the nickname in their contribution list also change? For example, in the article about apples, user:(whatever) made three contributions; then that same user changes his nickname to 'Y'. Do his contributions in the article about 'apples' show his new nickname, instead? Thanks. --Anittas 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There's two aspects here. You can sign your name however you want - say ] - whilst keeping your current username. Or you can change your username, and sign as ]. In the first case you'll show up in history logs as Anittas, in the second as Alexander. The problem here seems to be that Decius decided he wanted to change his username, but didn't do it properly - so he was signing himself as User:Alexandru on talkpages, and linking to Alexandru's page, but in the history he was still Decius.

As for actually changing usernames, yes, you can do this - but for (legal) reasons, you can't change to a username that's already registered, so whatever happened he couldn't be User:Alexandru. Does that make sense? Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Changing username is where you request changes. The feature is currently disabled and it is not possible to be renamed to an account that already exists. Secretlondon 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what he did. I think he went to that userpage and perhaps put a redirection to his own user-page. Well, maybe that's not allowed, but say, I create a user-page with a name user:ApplesAreCool and redirect it to my own userpage. Would that be allowed? --Anittas 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

that's not the point. you cannot do that if the account you are interested in is already taken. Even if the owner is no longer active: he is still the owner of the edits, tied to his account name. You cannot claim accounts that are no longer in use (arguably, you could if the account in question doesn't have any edits, but not if there are serious contributions). But Decius was blocked for offensiveness, not for this Username business. What is going on? He still appears to be banned. Do all admins agree that a long-time contributor with thousands of edits may be banned permanently without intervention of the arbcom, over abusive edit summaries?? How is this defensible as within policy? 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

alright, since I have looked into this now, and feel slightly annoyed by the lack of justification or feedback, I have taken action now:

• I agree with the block, Alexandru should have been warned, but even without warning, a block of a day or so would have been defensible regarding the nature of his edit summaries.
• Jtkiefer blocked him on 9 October, 2:16. This means that he has served for more than two days now.
• I do not allege Jtkiefer has acted in bad faith. But he has exhibited triggerhappiness coupled with a reluctance to defend his action that make me feel uncomfortable with regard to his arbcom bid
• I have unblocked User:Alexandru, but not User:Decius, which Alexandru/Decius stated he doesn't care to use anymore anyway realizing that he doesn't even have the password for User:Alexandru, I have unblocked User:Decius now, too (doh, why was User:Alexandru blocked in the first place?)

I am back to my wikivacation (I'll be back around Nov 12th), and thus will not be able to argue any more about this. Any admin is of course free to revert my action, but I would expect a clear justification, with reference to policy, in this case. As a final note, I do not consider this unblocking clique-ish: Yes, I have worked with Decius, and this may be the reason I cared enough to get involved; but I do think my action is fully in line with policy. regards & take care, dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all nobody can claim that he is still blocked due to 09:48, October 11, 2005 Dbachmann unblocked User:Alexandru (see WP:AN/I). it appears somebody who didn't feel that I acted quickly enough has unblocked him even though I only informed of any discussion of this at 7:09 (utc) this morning (2:09 est, my local time) so I feel that reversing my block without giving me adequete time to discuss this and possibly unblock him myself is extremely hasty and in bad form. Regarding the block, I agree now that I should not have instantly perm blocked him like that, the more appropriate step I could have done would be to have given a 24 or 48 hour block and request that he could explain himself regarding the edit summaries and the apparent impersonation of other users, not to mention the fact that he had multiple accounts which in itself isn't a reason to block however in this case would be the case be due to suspicious behavior on Decius's part. Now that he is unblocked I think that he should choose an account, preferably Alexandru since that appears to be his existing account and only sign with that name and that name alone to prevent confusion. Jtkiefer ----- 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Romath again

"Romath" (User:209.91.172.148) in this edit is now posting legal threats to the help desk in an attempt to have us delete any pages that mention her name -- A name publiczied on her own blog, IIRC. DES 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Also posted legal threats to Misplaced Pages:No legal threats after you linked it from the help desk. Kind of like iron. --GraemeL 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wik's sockpuppets

Neolithic (wik)

Tony Sidaway referred me to here ... just wanted to state that User:Neolithic appears to be User:wik ... he's been reverting articles to a non-NPOV verions. Sincerely, JDR 17:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And you two don't have any history or anything... It's always m:the wrong version as I'm sure you know. Secretlondon 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Name created for disruption

A spammer and vandal who used to just use the anon IP account User:131.247.118.130 (contributions) called me "NightmareGuy" and threatened "obnoxious vandalism" -- Now there's a new user, User:NightmareGuy (contributions), whose sole edits have been vandalism and harassment directly aimed at me. And see here where he admits to being the same editor as earlier. . I would suggest the the accont be permanently banned as the name itself was created solely for disruptive purposes and the only edits this person have made have been vandalism. DreamGuy 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• They were warned and it seems they have stopped. As a side note they invited another user to vandalize Dreamguy's page . ∞Who?¿? 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

DreamBoy (talk · contribs) was then created, which also went around undoing DreamGuy's work, so I blocked the account indefinitely. My first thought was Gabrielsimon, but he's too literate for Gabe. SlimVirgin 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

DreamMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today, his first edit to taunt DreamGuy and assure him a steady stream of harassment. I fear this will continue until the IP(s) behind the sockpuppets are identified. android79 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk II

Copied from WP:AN

How do we handle cases like Jguk (talk · contribs)? This person appears to me to be carefully timing his reverts to Jerusalem so as to repeatedly make his change against consensus while refusing to discuss on the talk page. I was ready to block him with a warning before I realized he technically had not violated the 3RR, so I wasn't sure I had the right to deal with him in that way.

I've reverted him, and I'm going to warn him that repeatedly reverting an article against such a clear consensus while refusing to discuss the edit on the article's talk page is vandalism and that if he continues he will find himself in dispute resolution and his ability to edit restricted. Any other comments? Should I just block him anyway, maybe a shorter block, as a warning? Jdavidb (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And then he archived his talk page immediately after my warning. Jdavidb (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

wait as see if the patturn continues. If it does block him. Gameing the rule is unhelpful.Geni 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith and have placed my warning on his new, blank talk page. If he reverts again today I'll block using 3RR. If I see him revert again after 24 hours, I may give a warning block (assuming noone here hollers and tells me that's not appropriate), or I may try to bring it to attention through dispute resolution so we could have an ironclad case for action if he doesn't concede. Jdavidb (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if he finds some excuse to take the warning off of his talk page, I'll act on that, too. Probably revert him back until he's at risk of 3RR on that. Jdavidb (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a small number of disruptive editors going round trying to change date styles from BC to BCE in contravention of WP policy - I have been reverting them. It appears here that I erred and that the page (unfortunately for most of our readers who find BCE alien to them!) apparently was not originally BC. That's a shame - we should always use common terms over unusual ones, but I shan't revert this page again. Incidentally, where I know I have made at least one revert of any page, I always check to see whether a further revert would make me in breach of the 3RR (which seems a sensible approach). I'm not into gaming - I'm into making WP as useful a resource to as many people as possible, it's just a shame that a small number of users aren't, jguk 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Resolved, then, mostly. Thanks for your good faith, here. I do think you (and all of us) need to realize that the present status quo on BC/BCE/AD/CE is pretty shaky. You can't go wrong if you treat it on an article by article basis and let the regular editors of that article come to consensus.

I don't think you're trying to game the 3RR system, but I do think you should think a little more about the spirit behind the policy. From experience, I get changes made more effectively when I'm discussing more and reverting less. I'll leave further comments about it on your talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, he's repeatedly removed my comments from his page. By my count he has done this four times: once through immediately archiving (now the timing is more suspicious), once for when I replaced my original comment on the new talk page, once for my next comment about the spirit behind the 3RR, and then once more after I replaced both removed comments. Is this a violation of 3RR? Jdavidb (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, check his edit history and note that he is still carrying the fight about era notation to other pages. Again I contend that this violates the spirit of 3RR when you are effectively carrying on the same revert on multiple pages. I rescind my above comment that this is resolved. Jdavidb (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He has removed my comments again. I consider this to be the fifth revert and a violation of 3RR and am blocking 24 hours. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock or otherwise admonish me. I think I'm doing right here ... but as a newbie admin I would like some feedback.

My understanding is that regardless of whatever control and latitude may be granted to you to control your user talk pages (which does not, according to any policy I can see, appear to be much) you don't get a free pass there from 3RR. Jdavidb (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Of course, he's continuing to remove the comments from his talk page. I'll protect the page if it persists.

Question: I'm not in violation of 3RR for replacing my warnings more than three times, am I? Jdavidb (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, User:Kelly Martin says I am in the wrong here. Jdavidb (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm bewildered by Jguk's attitude to this. He is the editor who's being disruptive by going around changing pages that have been stable around this issue for months, so far as I know. There is no policy on this. The MoS says both are acceptable and anyway the MoS isn't policy, but Jguk is going around implying that using BCE/CE is somehow forbidden. For example, a recent edit summary of his read: "I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit," which strikes me as less than honest, because the MoS, as Jguk knows very well, mandates nothing about anything. I really wish he would stop it because all it's doing is creating bad feeling. On top of that, he's archiving all the comments about it on his talk page, so people don't see that quite a few editors oppose him. SlimVirgin 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm copying this to WP:AN/I, which is where it should go, I believe. SlimVirgin 22:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim, the Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel pages have almost always used BC notation until User:Humus sapiens chose to change it. It is this change, and is adamant refusal to accept that it is against the WP guidelines, coupled with some personal attacks he has levied, that has created the problems in this page. Apparently I erred on the Jerusalem page, but not on the other pages, where I have been supportive of the WP "no change" approach. I continue to invite all other editors, including yourself, to support that compromise, jguk 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't hammer someone into making your comment stay on their talk page. 3RR is not in fact generally held to apply in this situation. If you put it there and he removed it, he saw it. It's not like the diff has vanished. This has been well established in many cases where annoying trolls were bugging people on their talk pages then tried to nail them with 3RR when they removed them. If he doesn't want to keep your comment there, that's up to him, not you, and you don't get to edit-war otherwise - David Gerard 22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm? This looks like a clear case of 3RR gaming in the article namespace. Add to that deleting warnings off his talk page and breaking the 3RR doing so. Kelly Martin said that 3RR doesn't apply to userspace, but that is wrong, it is just not generally enforced there. Here we have enough disruption in the article and talk namespaces, and clear block evasion using an IP and personal attacks in the edit summary when removing comments that I'd say a longer block would have been better. I would reblock, but I don't think that should be done without further agreement. (Although apparently Kelly Martin seems to think it was OK to unblock without any discussion. Don't we make people admins because we trust them?) Dmcdevit·t 22:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You gotta be joking. He had a 3RR warning put on his talk page, then he removed it. So he was warned and can't deny he was warned. Then what is the point of repeatedly replacing the warning except harassment? That's precisely why 3RR isn't generally applied to a user in their own userspace - people harassing others with repeatedly replacing removed additions, then trying to nail them on 3RR - David Gerard 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding to me (because I guess my comment wasn't really a response to you but in general). But my point is that, talk page shenanigans notwithstanding, 3RR gaming in the articles, block evasion, and personal attacks are enough for me to add up to a block, and so I am especially worried about the quick unblock without discussion. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, I meant the talk page thing in particular. User space if being used for a project purpose (a nebulous concept) seems to be seen as "one's own" - David Gerard 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Just one more thing: 3RR-blocking is not supposed to be a punishment, its aim is to stop edit wars. If someone is blocked, he can still edit his own talk page (IIRC), so a 3RR block would accomplish nothing here. (I'm only talking about the talk page thing as well.) Eugene van der Pijll 11:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

An edit summary from an IP address which claims here to be jguk looks a bit inappropriate. Ann Heneghan 22:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I was angry, I apologise for that - though if you'd suffered the abuse I have from User:Sortan and User:Humus sapiens and then a non-editing admin weighed in, ignorant of what he was getting into and misapplied WP guidelines, maybe you'd be angry too. Anyway, we all get hot under the collar sometimes, I know we shouldn't, and I accept that comment could have been better phrased, jguk 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I have become the new Slrubenstein against whose evil machinations the valiant Jon Garrett defends[REDACTED] from.

And back on planet earth.... Jguk has made over 300 date style changes to articles since his arbcom case as detailed here. This in addition to the over 1000 date style changes he made before his arbcom case, as detailed here. He is currently on his 12th revert on Kingdom of Judah, after changing date styles.

• 14+ reverts on Elam
• 14+ reverts on Fu Hsi
• 12 reverts on Kingdom of Judah
• 7 reverts on Kingdom of Israel

and the list goes on and on and on and on. Sortan 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You left an important incident off your list; while his Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Misplaced Pages, in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over 300 BCE/CE date style changes as an IP address. While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g. Jayjg 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And in case anybody is wondering about Jguk's ip.... he is using 195.40.200.xxx, as evidenced here. Some other edits he's done as an "anon ip" include: , which should all prove that this range is used by Jguk. Sortan 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Six reverts at Jerusalem between October 8 and 10 against six editors. SlimVirgin 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't explain Jguk's "apologies" when the same misconduct goes on and on. Often, his era-chaging edits are accompanied by misleading summaries, e.g. "as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change" . Since this has been repeatedly pointed out to him, I only conclude that he continues this intentionally. What needs to be done to take this matter further than just venting in a section Jguk N? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm firmly in the AD camp, but I'm finding Jguk's actions to be borderline trolling. He appears on stable articles, which he's never edited, and makes provocative changes. --Doc (?) 10:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All the articles Sortan refers to were stable in using BC notation until one editor changed it. I have stated quite clearly that I am not changing date styles, just reverting those who are. Compare Sortan's own edit history, which shows that it is a role account, probably created by a prolific WPian, that has just been used to troll the issue throughout. I have acknowledged that I got the wrong end of the stick on Jerusalem, but that is an exception. Will all editors accept the "no change of style" position, as I have, or not? I'd be interested in there replies, jguk 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk:

3.1.2 Style guide

1) Misplaced Pages has established a Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see . The prescriptions of Misplaced Pages's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." . Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

3.1.3 Optional styles

2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

In his urge to impose the BC/AD notation, Jguk deliberately misconstrues the ArbCom decision by picking only the parts he likes, ignoring the requirement to be "consistent within an article" and "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". I don't have anything against British spelling or BC/AD notation in general, but just as "it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject", in some cases it is inappropriate to use Christian-centric notation having a viable neutral alternative. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We have already had long discussions on this. Please see Misplaced Pages:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting where a number of proposals were defeated. I'm 100% sure that the ArbCom did not intend to overrule community decisions. You are arguing that something is a "substantial reason for a change" despite the community explicitly rejecting the proposal. Your attention has been drawn to this before as well. "Substantial change" is not an invitation to a free-for-all where debates can recommence on any article a particular editor wants. It must refer to changes that have clearcut community-wide consensus. At present, the community has adopted no consensus on the matter, which means at present no "substantial reasons" have been established, jguk 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, please reread Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Style guide & Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles (also quoted above). Please don't imply that "substantial reasons" don't exist (an example was given by the ArbCom) and please don't try to hide behind "the community" whose policies you push aside so often. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

New Request for Comment -- Abuse of Administrator Powers

I have written up a minor complaint about User:Redwolf24 here at the Requests for Comment page Please review it and sign on and express views if you like. Thank you, Obrigado.Wiki brah 01:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this isn't really the place to put it (unless I'm grossly mistaken). Ral315 W_S 05:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Crankshuick sockpuppets bot

The Crankshuick collection of sockpuppets is evading 3RR at Sealand and Empire of Atlantium and Template:Sealand table. Activity resumed one minute after Tony Sidaway removed protection . There seems little doubt that this is a bot lying in wait for the page to be unprotected. When blocked, a new sockpuppet is created.

I think we need the IP in question to be traced, or open proxies blocked. -- Curps 02:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a list of Wikbots? The Wik MO of late has been open proxies. He makes a good open proxy canary ;-) The catch being that CheckUser is slooooooooooooow and frequently fails with a timeout (the software kills any database query that takes too long). But a list could be useful, because that might point us to the proxy list he's using - David Gerard 08:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag

User on probation and banned from editing Israel related topics. Been editing Zionist Terrorism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zionist_terrorism&diff=25247905&oldid=25186664

Needs a further warning?

Unbehagen 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and autism

A thoughtful post to WikiEN-l here by Tony Sidaway. For the attention of RC/newpages patrollers in particular, but the general issue is wider than that - David Gerard 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Tony makes some good points, and it is an issue that deserves attention. I've specifically been involved with Maoririder, and am undoubtedly one of those who has drawn Tony's ire for "harassment". In my opinion, a user like Maori needs a mentor. And, occasionally, he needs little 15 minute blocks to slow him down or get his attention. I had hoped that the RfC process would, but unfortunately he ignored it. I supported the RfAr in the hope that it would grab his attention, which it has, but had the unintended effect of scaring him off. As a RC/new page patroller, I simply don't have the capability (and I doubt anyone else does) to patrol when the page is flooded with a new nano-stub that needs to be cleaned up every two minutes! I'd appreciate alternate suggestions for dealing with the problems users like Maoririder and Wiki brah present, because I just don't know the best way to respond- and they need some kind of response.--Scimitar 20:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the point of "slowing down" maoririder since as far as I can tell he's causing no damage to the wiki, and certainly nothing that can be helped by slowing him down. If he's ever edit warred or vandalised, that's a different matter, and if that does show up in the evidence it'll be a different matter.

I do think Maoririder needs a mentor, pretty much to stop people getting into punitive mode on him and blocking him. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On Wiki Brah, some of his joke templates were perhaps inappropriate. He does need to understand that not all attempts at humor are met with equal acclaim. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony makes some interesting points. From a practical standpoint, how are we in our day-to-day patrols supposed to tell the difference between a bona fide autist and someone merely ignoring the policies/guidelines/mos/conventions? I certainly do not want to be dismissive or flip towards anyone with autism, but at the same time it's very difficult to distinguish between who needs special attention and who needs special attention. FeloniousMonk 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this since we are diagnosing people over the 'net. Anyway, newpage patrolling is often tough as heck and a very slow process - the last thing we need is a couple of users on a one-sentence-article rampage. These users should be directed to some of the friendly admins around here and should maybe stop creating those substubs in rapid succession because they suck up the time of the patrollers. A block in this case is not neccesarily punitive - mostly its to encourage conversation rather then having the person focus his/her time on creating new articles. Ryan Norton 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow I never saw this, I just saw RN edit the page on my watchlist. Anyways I suggested to Kelly Martin recently that I may mentor Wiki brah. I've already advised him to stop saying slut and offering drugs. I don't think he's a lost cause myself... See also WP:RFCRED#Response. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be portayed as one who is bashing those with autism and other mental ailments (that's certainly not what I'm about), but maybe one who has problems with these things should not edit? The Arbitration Committee, in deciding the Gabrielsimon case, made the following principle/:

Successful editing of Misplaced Pages requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.

Also, WP:NOT therapy, and users who may or do have a disability aren't above the law. They too are required to obey the rules of this community encyclopedia. A different approach might be needed in rule infractions, but an approach nevertheless. This might seem a bit harsh, but I think it's the truth. Bratsche 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think Maoririder is a lost cause, though, and I think that if he's mentored he could eventually be quite effective- still contributing stubs, but in the neighborhood of four sentences, and formatted semi-properly. This to me seems an achievable outcome. However, I still believe we need blocks to do it, as Maoririder quite politely responds that he'll change, and then goes right back to what he was doing. The blocks wake him up. As for the reason there is a problem with what he is doing, his volume is so high that it makes New Page patrol virtually impossible. Most of his articles qualify for speedy deletion of AfD, and the only way patrollers can handle it is to stem the tide- i.e. blocks.--Scimitar 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Most reverted admin award

Most reverted admin award (talk · contribs) - wtf is going on here? Dunc|☺ 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a poor choice of name by whoever created it. It appears to be working out the admin with the most vandalized user page. --GraemeL 12:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think so? What about just MRAA, then let everyone free to choose what MRAA means? Most reverted admin award 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble figuring out how the points are calculated. It is some number multiplied with the number of reverts, divided by the days of having been an admin, but where does the original number come from? — JIP | Talk 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Each revert gives you 289 points. 289 number is not selected by chance, it is the days of the oldest administrator (User:Duk), according to the +sysop burocrat log . Then the result is divided by the number of days you are admin. Most reverted admin award 15:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you count the old Bureaucrat log, the oldest admin seems to be User:1Angela, who was sysopped on February 16, 2004. There have been admins even before that, but I don't know if their sysopping dates are logged anywhere. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

User:1Angela was just sysopped as a test of the new bureaucrat functions. You could check the history of WP:RFA for admins back to June 2003, but the ones before that were only recorded on the mailing list (wikien-l since that existed, and wikipedia-l before that). Angela. 18:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the advices. The new script is ready, and we have now new MRAA results! Angela, I am afraid you lost your silver medal :P Most reverted admin award 06:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'd like to be excluded from this. Please remove me from any future versions of the list. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is Communism sock

Википедия будет коммунизм (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Misplaced Pages earlier, and I tried to block, but the block log indicates I instead blocked Википедия будет комму (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Википедия будет коммунизм (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has yet to do anything else, so the block may have worked, but since there appears to be a problem blocking this username (or displaying it in the block log), I thought I'd give everyone a heads-up here. android79 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weird. If I look at the block log I find an indefinite on the first guy - - but not on the second - . Has the latter been fixed? Shimgray | talk | 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I think this just may be a Unicode problem in either Wikimedia or my browser. The Cyrillic characters are screwing up the {{vandal}} templates I used above, as well. android79 16:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen the templates thing before - I think it's actually the spaces not the fancy character screwing it up, ie foo bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shimgray | talk | 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a known bug that has nothing to do with Cyrillic. Use underscores instead of spaces: Википедия_будет_коммунизм (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Curps 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• That doesn't explain the weird behavior of the block log... or does it? android79 00:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Curps is right about the underscore business, I just found this out myself recently with the {{user}} series. Reproducing for clarity:

1. Википедия_будет_коммунизм (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Википедия_будет_комму (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first account has been blocked indefinitely three times, according to the blocklog.

• 18:49, 2005 October 11 MarkSweep blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet)
• 15:12, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet)
• 15:10, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet)

The second account has not been blocked. Don't know why the block log seems to show the opposite for you, Android. encephalon 07:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sock/bot attack

Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress is being hit by multiple ligged in socks - can the IP be detected and blocked? Quickly? --Doc (?) 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Now also hitting Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress --Doc (?) 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anybody? This is really getting ridiculous. It's clearly a bot. · Katefan0 16:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

do not! block these bot-generated accounts! this will only slow down the database. instead ask a developer for the originating IP and block that. 16:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody on IRC seems in the least concerned, and Phroziac has unprotected VIP. -Splash 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we need Developer intervention against vandalism or a similar page, because it isn't easy to get in touch with them. Titoxd 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

He's moved on to WP:RFAr. · Katefan0 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

no, we need admins who can see IPs. I have been saying this for a long time, and I think it is stupid to expect us to fight vandals without that capability. If not all admins are trusted with seeing IPs we need at least a substantial fraction of 'uber-admins' who can. Since we already have the rank, why not bureaucrats. This is an urgent requirement in my book; at least bureaucrats should be allowed to see IPs, and the population of bureaucrats should then be increased so that it is likely at least one is online at all times. Otherwise we are just shooting our own foot with a misguided notion of 'privacy'. (so, is this the onslaught prophesized by User:TheMessenger?) dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely necessary, as Misplaced Pages attracts more technically-savvy vandals. Could an "IP check log" be created so that usage of this ability is transparent? I'd feel comfortable trusting all bureaucrats (and possibly all admins) with this ability if anyone could see who was checking up on who. android79 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I'd love to see more editors with m:CheckUser, and a version of m:CheckUser that doesn't hurt the database server quite as badly. Who wants to write a proposal? --fvw* 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The point of hiding IPs is privacy, and the fact that we don't want people to (potentially) get in trouble for their actions on Misplaced Pages; and as admins are selected on the basis of on-Wiki trustworthiness, not real-world trustworthiness, they shouldn't be given powers with potential consequences off Misplaced Pages just by virtue of their adminship. ~~ N (t/c) 20:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If checkuser is made available to more admins (say, admins with a proven 2 year record of being responsible people, bureaucrats may decide), every lookup should be logged somewhere accessible for all the other admins (that a lookup of the username was made, not the result of it, of course). If a look-up log is open like this, it will help avoid suspicions of abuse and should keep everybody honest. Shanes 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If this is implemented, there should also be limits on the number of people one admin can use it on over a period of time. However, you run again into the issue of how to determine responsibility - some real-world verification of identity and evidence of trustworthiness should be provided, not just a record of good Misplaced Pages behavior. We hide IPs for a reason. Logging can't reverse an abuse that's already occured. ~~ N (t/c) 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There's not going to be a Taylorised formula for producing trust. It's more a scarcity of people who can read the stuff - telling what's likely to be DHCP, what sort of cycle the ISP in question changes DHCP IPs on, guessing as to the likely collateral damage, etc., etc., etc. I spent many years tracing net abuse (mostly on Usenet) and work as a sysadmin, so I know this stuff. I must get around to writing a help page on the CheckUser function from the user's viewpoint, for others with the power - David Gerard 12:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag

Guy Montag (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, he has continued editing. He may be briefly blocked and the three month ban may also be extended, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_2 Fred Bauder 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Decius again

A little while ago, Decius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the user page of Alexandru (talk · contribs) to User:No User Name For Now and replaced the redirect page with a speedy delete tag. This was discussed above in the #Decius section of this page. I have blocked him for 3 hours while investigating. -- Curps 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you better have a look at User:Alexander 007 now too, . If there's agreement that Alexander 007 is Decius (and I believe he is), then he should be blocked as well. FeloniousMonk 06:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike the previous cases, Alexander 007 is his own newly created account and not someone else's. So there isn't a problem here. I suggested he contact a bureaucrat to rename his account, but he preferred to do it this way (or maybe the rename feature is temporarily not working). -- Curps 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• The account Alexander_007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested that Decius's Talk page be speedily deleted. encephalon 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC) NB. The {{vandal}} template seems to have a carriage return that's messing up posts using it. I recall from the {{user}} talk page that this was once a suspected problem with that template too. Can this be fixed? encephalon 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, I fixed the template just now. -- Curps 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  I suppose we frown on talk page deletions, but since Decius == Alexander 007 this is his own request and not vandalism by some other user. Should it be deleted? -- Curps 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing {{vandal}}. As to the Talk page, I'd defer to your wide experience, Curps, but if Decius has had a problematic past—and the posts up above suggest multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing—I'm not sure I'd want to remove part of that record. As I understand it, the CSD provision allows User Talk pg deletion on request, but does not compel us to do it. There is also the additional issue that we have had no real confirmation, as far as I'm aware, of their unity—Alexander 007 has claimed to be Decius, and asked us to delete Decius' page, but AFAIK Decius hasn't posted anything confirming it. In cases like this it's probably best that two-way confirmation is safely in hand before any move is made to delete pages, etc. Kind regards encephalon 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  NB. Just went through User talk:Decius. It's almost certainly him all right, although he should have done the re-direct while signed in as Decius, and written a clear note on Alexander 007's talk page saying he=Decius (while signed in as Alex007). So it's up to the admins, I guess. My preference is that User talk:Decius remain as it is: a redirect, but with the history available for inspection should the need arise. encephalon 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

sigh: User:Alexandru is an unrelated user that made a few edits and left. User:Decius would have liked the username, and used the account's talkpage, that's all. Now following the events described further up on this page, Decius decided to settle for the new account User:Alexander 007 and wants the Decius account gone. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry, it's a username change. Of course User_talk:Decius shouldn't be deleted, because its history contains edits by many people, but if the user so wishes, it could be blank-protected, I suppose. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Alexander 007 is the same person as Decius, so I think it will be safe to go ahead and blank-protect Decius' userpages (you can still undo that should the 'real' Decius turn up, but I assure you they're the same). So, among the condemning summary "multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing" the only thing that really applies is "abusive editing", but that also only in edit summaries, where it appears the user likes to vent when drunk. Bottom line, this is a very good user, but he can safely be blocked for a few hours when he is spotted doing empty edits with abusive summaries, because that probably means he is drunk, or just in a gloomy mood. That still makes him a much less problematic user than lots of edit-warriors I could mention. 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi User:213.3.64.145. Thank you for your thoughts. There is no reason a page with edits by many people cannot be deleted from WP; it's routinely done, daily. There is some reticence about deleting User talk pages, because these usually contain a record of the user's interaction with the community, and may hold information others wish preserved. That incidentally is the reason I think it shouldn't be deleted. I'm sorry that you found it quite necessary to term a phrase of mine "the condemning summary"; I merely listed problems administrators thought the Decius account might be involved in, and in each instance added a modifier because it didn't appear to me that these suspicions had been confirmed—with the exception of the abusive edits. With respect to that, note that abusive edit summaries are actually particularly frowned upon, as they cannot be removed (except by developers, in rare instances). I am not aware of a request by Decius to have his talk page blank-protected; I am aware of a request by Alexander 007 to have that page deleted. It currently redirects; this sounds to me the best solution. Regards encephalon 12:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • that's right, and what I meant: we don't allow quitting admins to delete their talkpages, so I don't expect us to delete Decius' talkpage. I was trying to point out what's behind all this, and why it isn't sockpuppetry or impersonation, and I agree with your general evaluation. If Decius wants his talkpage protected, let him ask for it, as Decius. I hope now that the user has chosen a new name, this issue will be put to rest. How much weirdness in a user should be tolerated imho depends on that user's value as a contributor. An account that does nothing but empty edits with abusive summaries can safely be banned. A prolific contributor who every other weeks starts cursing in summaries of edits to his own userpage should be treated with some indulgence. 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation: User:Alexander 007 is me, at my new account. User:Decius was my former account. I have logged in as User:Decius, preferably for the last time, to confirm this. I would like User talk:Decius deleted and restarted as a redirect with a fresh edit history. I do not plan on becoming an Admin; there is no RfC filed against me; there are no serious charges against me. I would just like my old talk page deleted. I plan on being a more private user, with fewer edits made, and of course fewer obscenities spouted. Cheers, -Alexander 007 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Decius was in fact already deleted less than a week ago by an Administrator , then restarted as a redirect (with a fresh edit history) by me, as I stated I would do. But User:Curps (?) restored the old talk page with the old edit history. So, perhaps, if in the future someone really feels compelled to read through the edit history of the old User talk:Decius, you can just restore it again. But till such need arises, I'd like to have it deleted. -Alexander 007 20:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (the fact that I first requested it to be deleted on October 6th, before I even got in trouble with the Jtkiefer affair, shows that I'm not just requesting this deletion to "cover-up" Wiki transgressions, if there be any, but just to clean the slate a bit)

As noted on your talk page you cannot have your talk page deleted so please stop placing it up for speedy deletion. On that note I have reverted back to the redirect version that points to the Alexander's new talk page. Jtkiefer ----- 20:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As noted below your statement on my talk page, I can have my talk page deleted, within policy . Whether it will be deleted, depends on whether the admins agree to it. On User talk:Gamaliel, I explain my position, and once again request that my talk page be deleted, and later I will request that User:Decius be deleted. Gamaliel thought of an alternative, to go through the edit history and delete only the personal info (which is the whole reason I'm requesting deletion), which would be fine, but I'm not sure that is possible. I hope this won't turn into a nasty war, where admins who may have come to loathe me (User:Jtkiefer? User:Curps? who knows; I hope not) just want to keep it to spite me. At User talk:Gamaliel, I explained what my reasons are. -Alexander 007 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

User:10.0.0.8

10.0.0.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) committed vandalism yesterday. I've now blocked indefinitely, but surely this is a registered username spoofing an IP address and not an actual IP address???? Will the block apply to the username or to the IP address (the latter would seem ineffective). -- Curps 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• 10.0.0.8 is within "private" IP space and could not be a legitimate anonymous user's IP. android79 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• See User talk:10.0.0.8. Apparently it's a technical glitch. I'd suggest leaving the account blocked, as no one should be editing from that IP. android79 02:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned on User talk:10.0.0.8, Tim Starling said on IRC that this was caused by a technical issue (something about new load balancing servers). The edits were coming from multiple users, including people who apparently thought they were logged in. I would say unblock the IP or ask a developer. It wasn't caused by spoofing or any malicious activity. I am worried that the block could cause problems with the new load balancing thingy. Rhobite 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the contribution history, there were only contributions from 15:55 to 16:32 on October 11. So hopefully whatever glitch it was is fixed.

There were also contributions from 10.0.0.11 (talk · contribs) yesterday in the same time frame, and back in July from 10.0.0.3 (talk · contribs), and in January from 10.0.0.13 (talk · contribs). I didn't check beyond 10.0.0.15. -- Curps 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Tim told me on irc, that blocking 10.0.0.0/8 should have no effect on the wiki. He did suggest that any block on this range should include a friendly block message. The problem was related to configuration changes to the load balancing software. --GraemeL 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Scott Keith

There was a really ugly edit war between anonips at Scott Keith (over 200 edits) today. I couldn't decided which version was the good one, so I reverted to the last version before today (from a week ago) and protected it. This may be related: where yesterday is written:

Oh come on now... http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Keith

I finally get a Misplaced Pages entry and it's from some doofus with a grudge who complains about errors and then gets pretty much everything about me wrong? I'd fix it myself but that might be considered a bad thing to do.

User: Blade Runner

The above user appears to be a WOW sockpuppet and is making duplicate article in the form "article_on_Wheels" and creating redirects from the real articles. See Special:Contributions/Blade_Runner. Can some kindly admin please investigate. Thanks --Cactus.man ✍ 11:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I see User:Ahoerstemeier has now blocked him, but there is a bit of cleaning up to do. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

the vandalbot returneth

Any guesses on who this is? —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

… I may be missing something, but how can it vandalise this page even though it appears to be protected? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's protected against moves, not editing. --GraemeL 12:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the developers help out here? This is getting a bit silly... the block log's getting cluttered. -- Curps 13:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked the devs for help during yesterday's attack. They weren't interested. There's not much point blocking if it is behaving like yesterday: it only made a single edit with each account. -Splash 13:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anything actually be done, though? We cannot protect the page from editing, clearly. I wonder if some sort of edit count restriction might work (eg. only users with >10 edits can edit the page, or something like that). encephalon 13:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The devs could block the IP(range) underlying the creation of the accounts. -Splash 13:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I'd assumed that this had been considered and found undoable for some reason (ie. dynamic IP/AOL IP, etc.) I'd support a perm block for a static. encephalon 13:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is getting very irritating. Sooner or later the vandalbot will be signing up new usernames faster than we can block them and vandalising this page faster than we can revert it. The developers should find out the bot's IP address and block it indefinitely. — JIP | Talk 13:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No new random users for 15 minutes in new users log - I was bold and unprotected it. Suggest protect again if I was hasty. Perhaps the bot recognises when the page is protected and stops? Await vandal bot's next target? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

We need to do something about this vandalbot quickly. I wonder about a)creating a centralised discussion to look for quick fixes and longterm solutions. b) creating a 'vandalbot alerts' page - which is constantly v-protected - for communication when ANI, AN, and VIP become unusable. And asking some folk with technical know-how (pref some developers) to keep it watched. --Doc (?) 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The vandalbot seems to be only creating accounts right now, and not making edits anymore. Is it because that the underlying IPs are blocked? --Ixfd64 09:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I agree with deleting vandal accounts, especially if they have never been used before. We don't need that crap cluttering up Misplaced Pages. --Ixfd64 10:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There's not a lot we can do in practice. It's a vandalbot. We could throttle new accounts from editing this page, and it would edit other pages. We had some success blocking the accounts from the new accounts page last time, and it ended it for a day. That's about our best bet. Snowspinner 16:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Did we work out whether that was because it tripped the IP autoblocker by trying to edit from a preemptively blocked account? If it was, can we extend the autoblockers block manually since there don't seem to have been cries of collateral damage? I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24hrs though, so I suppose it's found another IP even if we did catch it. -Splash 17:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It may have been disabled (or broken), but I recall some past discussion of how there should be an account registration throttle of something like 10 per IP per day. As our friend is obviously creating more than that, it suggests he has no trouble switching IPs. Dragons flight 17:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I also note that there are about 64 autoblocks associated with accounts in this spree. This suggests to me that it might only have ended because he used up all the IPs he had available. Dragons flight 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that'd be a good idea even if we could (we can't). Right now my best guess is that Wik's using a zombie network, some of which will be editing through shared proxies. I'd love for someone to give us some proper logs of IPs though. --fvw* 17:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Either that, or he's using a kind of proxy your bot does not block. --cesarb 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Or just an open proxy that my bot hasnt' found yet. However, given that the one IP we did get didn't have any open ports and didn't show up on google, I find it unlikely, unless it was a decoy. --fvw* 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm out of my technical depth here. But actually, this bot seems pretty amateur - and it doesn't take a techno-whizz to imagine far more destructive thinks that could be done (no, won't give it ideas). But, sooner or later we're going to run up against a really skillful opponent. As Misplaced Pages grows in fame, so it will grow as a target. I can't believe this hasn't occurred to someone at Wikimedia before, and perhaps we should not only be looking for a solution, but asking for advice. What does Mr Wales make of all this? What's to be done if it gets really serious. --Doc (?) 17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Replies to common objections#Bots. --cesarb 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be escalated, we need to know what the underlying IPs were. If open proxies, they need to be blocked, obviously. If AOL, then somebody high up (maybe even Jimbo himself) should contact AOL and tell them to "strongly caution" whoever their ISP customer is. We need enhanced vandal accountability and traceback capabilities. Developers ought to be encouraged to take an interest in this, or perhaps the next fundraising drive should be for a full-time developer's salary rather than for more servers.

The privacy issue perhaps be a moot point if the vandalbot accounts used a pool IP address, because then various collaterally-damaged users might come out of the woodwork and say they were blocked... those users will then helpfully supply the IP address and username mentioned in the block message. Add timestamps from the contribution history, publish it here along with the abuse contact info (e-mail and telephone) for that ISP (from ARIN or RIPE or APNIC), and then anyone who's motivated can contact the ISP to complain about their customer.

In fact, I'm thinking of editing Mediawiki:autoblocker to add a message encouraging collaterally-damaged users to post the contents of their block message (with IP address information). Create a page for this, maybe Misplaced Pages:Recent you-got-blocked messages. Sort of a poor man's "checkuser". -- Curps 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, please. That message is already long enough to sometimes cut off the ending of the original block reason. --cesarb 17:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mean the "block reason" that's entered by the blocking admin... that's limited to about 237 characters. I think I meant Mediawiki:blockedtext rather than Mediawiki:autoblocker. The basic idea is, when a user is blocked they get a page back saying "You have attempted to edit a page...". Somewhere on that page, we should have text that says "please post the IP address and associated username that this block was for, to Misplaced Pages:Recent you-got-blocked messages". That way, we can gather IP address information, combine it with the timestamps from the contribution history, and publish it along with ISP abuse contact phone and e-mail information so that anyone who wishes to can act on it. -- Curps 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

man, Misplaced Pages admins shouldn't have to trick Misplaced Pages policy to get IPs by asking for volunteers to supply them. Just. ask. for. the. IP.s -- you are the guys in the trenches, doing unpaid vandal fighting, you need to see the IPs. Else go on strike and let them see what happens to the database. 18:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've left a message for Jimbo on his talk page. -- Curps 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a case for legal action? --Pjacobi 17:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The effort needed in uncovering the IPs behind the attack just isn't worth it. It's Wik, we know it's Wik, Wik uses proxies, Wik can and will keep doing this. Here's the weird thing about Wik, though - Wik believes in Misplaced Pages. Wik is not out to destroy the project. I would be very surprised if Wik targeted his vandalbot against article pages, or if he kept it running 24/7. He wants us to know we're vulnerable, and to accept that he's right about how to deal with problems on Misplaced Pages. But he doesn't want the project to fail.

Offering him the (unpaid) post of Vice president for Polish cities naming conventions? --Pjacobi 18:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thus our best bet is to show resistance to the attack in a low-effort way. Preferably without developers. On that note, I'm going on a new account blocking spree. Snowspinner 18:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing I suggested on Jimbo's talk page is for the next fundraising drive to pay for the salary of a full-time developer to work on enhancing Misplaced Pages security and integrity, or perhaps just a full-time IP-address-tracer and ISP-follow-up-er, who'd be on a first-name basis with the abuse contact persons at each major ISP. We need enhanced vandal accountability and traceback. We don't (necessarily) want to find out the vandals' identities, but their ISPs already know their identities, and in many cases it may be enough for them to get a phone call from their ISP.

In the meantime, I've suggested a "low-effort" way to gather vandal IP addresses, with or without developer cooperation. The nice thing with this "stool pigeon" proposal is, you keep your privacy as long as you don't do something to warrant getting your IP address blocked. -- Curps 18:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But we don't need that. This is Wik. We know that. Knowing the IP doesn't help, because it's clearly dynamic. We could sue, maybe, if we wanted to spend the money, but it's not as though it would close the vulnerability. Our best bet would be to add quick-click blocklinks to the user creation page so that someone can just run down it and kill users faster. Snowspinner 18:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Snow, could you pretend for a moment that some of us haven't been around forever, and explain why you believe this is Wik as opposed to some new and obnoxious vandal with modest programming skills? Or even some other long-term vandal, e.g. Willy, who learned a few new tricks? There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence on which to discriminate in either direction. Dragons flight 18:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we can't be certain that it's Wik, but A: this mostly matches the M.O. of his first vandalbot attack (see User:Vandalbot and mailing list threads starting round about here) and B: it comes hard on the heels of the ban on his newest accounts. Notice how the only pages the bot targets are those that have hosted discussions leading to the banning of one or more of his accounts—articles have remained untouched.

I'm not sure what Wik (if it is him) hopes to accomplish, though. The last vandalbot attack was preceded by an ultimatum; no such threats have been made here, as far as I can tell. Maybe he's just trying to prevent anyone from using certain pages? —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the IP is dynamic as long we have timestamps. Supply the IP+timestamp log info to abuse@His ISP, and they put two and two together. His ISP knows his name, address, e-mail and phone number. Let them give him a phone call, or drop him as a customer for violating their TOS. With consolidation of ISP ownership, there are only so many ISPs he can burn through before he won't be able to log on to the Internet anymore. -- Curps 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: "no legal threats" applies to individual Misplaced Pages users... I don't know that it applies to the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Somewhere out there, there may be a careerist FBI agent looking for a high-profile case that would establish his reputation as the go-to guy who's on top of all the latest new-fangled "cyber" stuff (if nothing else, Misplaced Pages gets a fair amount of press). Play up the homeland security angle ("Today Misplaced Pages, tomorrow the nation's critical high-tech infrastructure! Digital Pearl Harbor yadda yadda!"), and who knows, the guy could get Mitnicked. Don't let him near a pocket calculator, he might use it to hack the Pentagon... :-) -- Curps 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Captchas? --Pjacobi 18:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's one thing a full-time paid developer could add rather quickly. -- Curps 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a block link to Special:Log/newusers (see MediaWiki:Newuserloglog). We'll have to wait for the next wave of attacks to see if this helps matters at all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

An easier way is just to use Func's script: User:Func/wpfunc/nupatrol.js. It makes the new user log colorful with buttons going to talk, edits, actions (such as move page), Special:Ipblocklist, Special:Log/block, and Special:Blockip, individualized for the new user. Bratsche 20:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, monitoring the new user log will probably be a temporary stopgap at best; I don't doubt that the vandalbot operator knows how to make the names less obvious, should s/he so desire. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I see that it's already using non-obvious names. Blast. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, he's already done so with some of his usernames, although the sudden flood of registrations is still a good sign, and one can just shoot the huge chain of accounts registered around a vandalbot attack. But this has an unpleasantly high risk of blocking innocents. Snowspinner 00:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, did someone who knows what to think of IP address information see Flcelloguy's post on the WP:AN version of this thread? It looked like an IP did an edit the same as the 'bot, so he perma-blocked the IP (for the time being). Apparently that didn't stem the tide, though. -Splash 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Three IPs on WP:RFC, all from 83.92.129.*. Any objections to blocking the /24? Further, they're all from TeleDanmark IP space, which appears to be 83.88.0.0/13, in case anyone wants to make a large range-block. --Carnildo 03:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the recent changes, I found almost a dozen vandalbot accounts. I blocked them all, and in the time it took me to do this (less than five minutes), there were three or four more. If I were to continue this blocking spree, I'd be here all day. I have a civilian service and a job to do. And I have to eat. I can't spend 24 hours sitting in front of Misplaced Pages. This matter is too tough for admins, we need checkuser/developer assistance. Last night I thought of making Misplaced Pages editing more strict: Anonymous IPs couldn't edit, and to sign up for an account you would have to pass a CAPTCHA (sp?). To be really safe, every edit would need to pass a CAPTCHA, but that would irritate bona fide users to no end, and Misplaced Pages would stagnate. — JIP | Talk 06:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They started again, I have been double checking all the old logs and a rash of them just broke out, going faster than I can block. Also if you could use {{vandalbot}}, it keeps from double blocking. ∞Who?¿? 07:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's probably exactly what the terrorists want: to make Misplaced Pages become more restrictive. --cesarb 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:217.73.101.30

I want to bring this user to your attention. The IP can be traced to the town of Varberg in Sweden. This user has recently censored several Albania-related articles, see contribs. He has also been active on Swedish Misplaced Pages, see sv:contribs.

User:217.73.101.30 is editing Albania-related articles in an Albanian chauvinist way just like User:Albanau and his sock puppet User:L'Houngan. User:Albanau = sv:Användare:Albanau has benn blocked indefinitely on Swedish Misplaced Pages, but continues to operate through his sock puppets sv:Användare:L'Houngan, sv:Användare:Arnauti and sv:Användare:Piana in addition to several suspected IP-addresses.

User:217.73.101.30, a.k.a. User:Albanau/User:L'Houngan, is a cunning and hostile troll, who has been vandalizing and waging several edit wars. Probert 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

203.82.183.0/24

I thought I'd unblocked this earlier for collateral damage ... it's unblocked now. The guy who asked me to unblock it is User:Brent McCartney (who so far hasn't written anything) and the IP he was getting hit on was 203.82.183.147, which he says is his own recently-acquired static IP. "I am coming through skyways.net.au (might be .com.au can never remember)." So if crap starts coming through from this block again, apply any blocks more carefully than I did :-)

(Hey, this page protection thing is great - no edit conflicts! I look forward to non-admins being able to post though ...) - David Gerard 22:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Screwing with sandbox

63.19.130.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps adding the vprotected template to the sandbox. This is probably disruptive, as are the edit summaries abusing those who remove it. There are no outside-sandbox contributions. Would a brief block be appropriate? ~~ N (t/c) 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I noticed this just now, too. I blocked him for 12 hours. Shoot vandals first, ask questions later. -Splash 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

These IPs are related to the so-called King of the Hill vandal (many, many more IPs too) --HappyCamper 00:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• 63.19.129.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.130.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.131.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.141.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.144.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.144.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.146.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.151.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.201.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.207.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.214.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.216.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.19.217.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

To block this guy, you would apply a range block: 63.19.128.0/17 . As far as I know, there haven't been any reports of collateral damage when this was done in the past. Just in case he's trying to turn over a new leaf (we can always hope) and confining his edits to the sandbox, we might go easy on him this time despite his long and checkered history. -- Curps 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Curps here. This is the "North Carolina Vandal" -- one of the most prolific vandals in the history of our project, as can be verified by counting the 63.19 vandalisms in any of the north central North Carolina Rambot articles, as well as Luxembourg, Mississippi, and everywhere else, since about May of this year. Charactistic of his editing are invention of fictitious places, minor changes in demographic numbers, and invention of fictitious characters in a cartoon universe reminiscent of King of the Hill. Look at Stokes County, North Carolina -- every vandalism is him, and it's an enormous amount. Maybe, just maybe, he's going to stop. By the way, I am yet to see a single identifiably different editor from the 63.19.128.0/17 range. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never actually applied a block on a range of IPs before. Do I just enter that text you suppled above verbatim to do so? Also, if some of the IPs are 63.19.2XX.XXX, how would blocking 63.19.128.XXX help? Does the first bit of the binary representation of 128 somehow mask out all the other IPs? But this doesn't make sense to me...I just want to understand this a bit better. Lately, I've been leaving nice welcome messages for these IPs every time I see them experimenting on the sandbox. I've found that it's an effective method of saying "we know you're around, we're keeping an eye on stuff..." --HappyCamper 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See netmask for an explanation about how it works. --cesarb 03:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Botnet attack warning (be prepared the following days)

AS we've been hitting by vandalbots lately, I want to share something I had forgot but which has more relevance now. On October 6, 68.113.223.195 (talk • contribs) vandalized some entries. On those entries, he warns about an incoming botnet attack:

• Hurricane Stan
• August
• Stanford University
• Robert H. Grubbs
• Nobel Prize in Chemistry
• Robert H. Grubbs
• Commodore 64.

In all cases, the text was the following

THIS SPAMBOT WAS CREATED BY: SFL. THIS IS A SPAM TEST TO EXPERIMENT IF IT WORKS ON WIKIPEDIA. IF SUCCESSFULL, WHICH, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU ARE READING THIS, A MAJOR SPAMING THAT[REDACTED] HAS NEVER EXPIERENCED BEFORE WILL OCCURE ON OCTOBER 15, 2005.

WHEN FULLY OPPERATIONAL, THIS SPAMBOT WILL RUN ON A TOTAL OF 500 UNIQUE SERVER IP ADDRESSES STRIKING ALL AT ONCE MAKING IT SEEM LIKE EVERYONE IS A CONTRIBUTOR...

BEWARE-DON'T MESS WITH A MACHINE!

SFL

//SPAM 223090959THIS SPAMBOT WAS CREATED BY: SFL. THIS IS A SPAM TEST TO EXPERIMENT IF IT WORKS ON WIKIPEDIA. IF SUCCESSFULL, WHICH, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU ARE READING THIS, A MAJOR SPAMING THAT[REDACTED] HAS NEVER EXPIERENCED BEFORE WILL OCCURE ON OCTOBER 15, 2005.

WHEN FULLY OPPERATIONAL, THIS SPAMBOT WILL RUN ON A TOTAL OF 500 UNIQUE SERVER IP ADDRESSES STRIKING ALL AT ONCE MAKING IT SEEM LIKE EVERYONE IS A CONTRIBUTOR...

On almost all cases, some sort if id number like SFL //SPAM 224353799 was added. Next day Zephern (Zephern@gmail.com) emailed asking me about the block.

Given that several vandalbots from different ips have been around the past days, and that October 15 is around the corner, I'd wanted to share it with you guys so we can be prepared if needed, any more info I can gather about the issue I'll post. -- (drini's page|☎) 01:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

While this may be connected, it is threatening to spam, not to replace various Misplaced Pages namespace pages with SUPER COOL. Real spammers generally try to be a little bit surreptitious about their spamming, not announce it in ALL CAPS nine days before they start. Besides which, the m:Spam blacklist makes it a bit easier to deal with the usual sort of spamming; it eventually drove off the Russian PHP spambot . Keep an eye out, though. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, October 15th is just three days away (2 if using UTC.) -Greg Asche (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the edits were made on 6 October. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The spam filter is very unsophisticated, it's a very blunt and inefficient tool with high overhead. You can't really tailor the filtering in any way: for instance, you can't whitelist individual good sites at a hosting service that also hosts spammers (common in some parts of the world).

Also, the spamfiltering is done on metawiki (not here) and applies globally to all interwikis, which is far from ideal for a number of reasons:

• "one size fits all" doesn't: for instance, the collateral damage from spamfiltering a Russian hosting service is much greater for the Russian[REDACTED] than for the English wikipedia
• response time: meta is a comparatively sleepy wiki and you might get action on a filtering request after half a day or so. Only a handful of meta admins work on filtering requests (Silsor was one of them, last I checked).
• English[REDACTED] admins usually aren't admins on meta, which means our fate isn't in our own hands. We have to go hat in hand to get the attention of developers or meta admins, some of whom mostly work or edit on quieter interwikis that don't face the same constant background of vandal activity as English does.

The way the filtering is applied is also rather clumsy and user-unfriendly: it simply prevents you from saving any article that contains a spamfiltered external link URL, with a cryptic message that doesn't even mention which URL it is. Many users faced with this probably simply abandon their planned edits, and articles affected can remain un-edited for months.

I wish Misplaced Pages integrity had a higher priority. The ideal thing would be a full-time paid developer to work on this (adding captchas and SSL shouldn't be that hard, for instance), as well as a full-time ISP liaison person who would track IP addresses and be on a first name basis with the abuse contacts at major ISPs, getting them to boot vandals and spammers from their ISP for violation of TOS. As things stand, admins are fairly limited in what we're able to do against concerted attacks. -- Curps 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Has there been any response from the developers? Weren't there some measures created specifically to deal with Wik's 2004 vandalbot that could be used against this one? Right now it's not doing nearly as much damage as it could (I won't tell it not to stuff beans up its nose, but it's not hard to imagine something worse than shutting down a few project pages), but if the operator wanted to, s/he could probably force us to shut down all editing. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You make a valid point, Charles/Mirv. If the creator of this bot really does have 10,000 IP addresses (which appears might be the case), there is no reason why he couldn't use them to destroy the whole encyclopedia. At 100 or so edits/minute without blocking would necessitate a DB lock. Erwin

A full-time ISP liaison is a good idea, but captchas are bad for accessibility, and I don't see what SSL would help with. Perhaps someone should be designing a heuristic to detect spam. ~~ N (t/c) 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SSL would be for logins, the reason should be obvious. -- Curps 19:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, SSL should be done, but it would have no effect on vandalbots. ~~ N (t/c) 00:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If you force SSL for logging in, it'll impact vandalbots: either the creator will need to go to the extra effort of adding SSL to his bot, or he'll edit using IPs, which are easy to range-block. --Carnildo 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, actually it'll impact all bots, vandal or not. I hadn't thought of that. I'm guessing that SSL code is widely available? -- Curps 05:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

I have received the following email:

I have filed the following complaint with the appropriate legal authorities:

The Wikimedia Foundation is registered as a non-profit corporation in the State of Florida. http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=N03000005323&n2=NAMFWD&n3=0000&n4=N&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=WIKIMEDIA&r5=

The Board of Trustees of this Foundation have allowed vicious lies, smears, slander and libel about me to appear on their website and they have repeatedly prevented me from defending myself.

Please note I am involved in USG National Security work and what these people are doing is detrimental to US National Security. The Wikimedia Foundation, wittingly or unwittingly I do not know, is aiding the terrorist cause.

Sincerely

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. physicist San Francisco, CA telephone number included in email suppressed by me

User:Zoe| 03:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• God damnit, the revege of bigdaddy, supertroll extraordinar--64.12.116.5 03:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • He's already being dealt with by another admin, via out-of-band means. IIRC a number of admins received that email. --cesarb 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Jack Sarfatti. --cesarb 03:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Let him come. We need some excitement around here. It'd be nice if one of these blowhard crackpots actually did file suit, it would finally generate some precedent. --Golbez 07:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It would generate free publicity... although, I don't know it would be good or bad publicity... --AllyUnion (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

All publicity is good publicity. Titoxd 00:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor and Jack Sarfatti

Ed Poor engaged in what appears to be a silly edit war on Jack Sarfatti, pushing for Jack's view. They insist that the comments they are removing are smears, etc. I don't think they are, personally. Ed used rollback for the edit war, and protected it on his version after he made three reverts. This seems very wrong to me. I'm rather neutral about this, and reverted to the version before the edit war. What do you think about this? --Phroziac 05:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is as you say it is, it sounds out of line. You don't rollback in edit wars (except with vandals), and you don't protect a page (on any version) if you're edit warring over it. Everyking 14:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess it's User:Ed Poor respecting User:Hillman's request , , , to put and lock the article in a Sarfatti-friendly state, as User:Hillman was threatened to be sued into the ground, if that wouldn't happen. Asssuming that User:Hillman didn't get assertions from the Foundation of legal cover, I would see User:Ed Poor's action as reasonable. --Pjacobi 14:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, giving ownership of articles to obnoxious, harassing cranks who make legal threats: always a good idea. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

New bot-like names

(User creation log); 09:36 . . S^4OQ5k$?G3qg (Talk) (Created the user S^4OQ5k$?G3qg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lots more where that came from...
brenneman 09:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yea, take a look at Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected vandalbots :) Find a whole lot of them. I've been blocking them for hours, need to go back through the back logs and make sure the rest are blocked. ∞Who?¿? 09:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ohhh... was that fast? That looked fast. - brenneman 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

hehe.. I honestly think its a scam, or an obfuscation for creating normal looking accounts. I blocked Pilly on Pills in the middle of it somewhere. I just want to know if the double block bug is fixed. ∞Who?¿? 09:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the same thing, fog of war and all. - brenneman 09:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was ever a reason for the developers to delete accounts, I think this would be it. I hate creating userpages for all of them, but it at least keeps us from double blocking. ∞Who?¿? 09:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• The horror, the horror. Looking over this makes me glad not to be an admin. Is DaleDale a lurking vandal? What about Bell-bell? Paranoia sets in at once...
  brenneman 09:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And 3Hp, and Thom21, and Tomblom, and TombleWeed... I'm getting queasy...
    brenneman 10:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well I have been finding a couple I'm weary about.. Like

• User:Dd0
• User:8Ia
• User:0Ra
• User:4Dk
• User:3Hp
• User:5N10
• User:Xy1

which i haven't blocked yet, but am tempted. There were prolly 4 other before those. ∞Who?¿? 10:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly it's a Red Army tactic, create more vandals than we have bullets. I don't think missing a few here and there (or even killing a few civilians accidentally, if you had blocked them and been wrong) is actually going to help. What's the impact on the servers and/or performance if this goes on? - brenneman 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Pretty bad I would think, but this is part of the attack, db lag is horrid. I'm making a list of all the ones I suspect and watching them. ∞Who?¿? 10:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

do you realize what these blocks do to performance? why would you block these? the vandal will just create another. At least block them only for 30 minutes or so, so they don't clog up the blocklist. You see, say a vandal has 256 IP adresses to burn. He creates 256 bots and keeps us busy for hours. The 'recently used IP' blocks expire and he can have at us with another 256 bots, while the original 256 blocks still clog up the ipblocklist. Alternatively, check the bots' IP and do one 24-bit rangeblock (duration depending on the nature of the IP, dialup or static). No more trouble for the duration of the block, no clogged up ipblocklist. does that make sense? 130.60.142.65 12:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, and is what we would dearly love to do. But we don't have access to the necessary IP information. Those that do are, for reasons I do not understand, unwilling to help us out. So we have to do it the bad way, or not at all. Bug the devs or checkusers — that's the only way. In any case, there's a good chance they are using open proxies and/or highly dyanmic IPs that blocking would result in much collateral damage. -Splash 12:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone with the necessary language skills translate this diff, please? I made an uneducated guess, and have indef blocked the account that made it. I'm not feeling terribly sympathetic. -Splash 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I just met the Super Cool bot (Programmer-X) and reverted him. Haven't bothered to block, per the above. His text appears to be a babelfished translation into Dutch, judged by the nonsensical grammar. In it, he claims to have over 10000 IP addresses, and that the bot cycles to the next address when blocked. He also claims to have stopped for today. Crisatunity. Radiant_>|< 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• We need a CAPTCHA for user registration, and we need it yesterday. Radiant_>|< 12:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • CAPTCHAs for user registration won't do squat if anonymous IPs are still allowed to edit. What's stopping a vandalbot from simply making edits from multiple anonymous IPs? It already has access to multiple IPs, otherwise it wouldn't have got past the autoblocker or the user signup throttler. Maybe we need CAPTCHAs for every edit by anonymous IPs? — JIP | Talk 12:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily; if an IP makes vandalistic edits, we know which IP to block and which ISP to contact for its abuse. If a registered account does that, only the sockcheckers can figure that out. Radiant_>|< 12:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Fvw is working on a proposal, hopefully which will solve or remedy some of these issues. Everyone should give it a read and offer any suggestions and/or approval. ∞Who?¿? 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd give it a read if you tell me where it is? Radiant_>|< 12:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe this is Misplaced Pages:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal. Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Accessibility. Accessibility. Accessibility. BTW, what's the "double-block bug"? Is it that all blocks on a user expire when the shortest one does? How does that affect indefinite blocks? ~~ N (t/c) 16:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I read awhile back, where I believe a developer had said that if two users were to block the same user indef, it would undo the block due to a bug. I don;t know if it is still around, or if it existed. I remember some admins complaining about users that were blocked editing, and that's how I found the discussion. Not really sure, but when I seen Curps unblock and reblock when there were two indef previous blocks, I just figured I would check all the ones I came across.. About 560 or them I checked. ∞Who?¿? 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. I ran into someone blocked 4 times indefinately. The only page they can edit still is their talk page, which you can protect the talk page if the vandal is uncooperative. --AllyUnion (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok good. I figured it was better safe than sorry, since it was only my time lost :) But good to know, thanks for replying. ∞Who?¿? 21:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Could it be you're confusing this with the "shortest block takes precedence" bug? --fvw* 21:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • We need the captchas ASAP. Nickptar, it's what economists call opportunity cost. We either let the vandalbot screw the whole Wiki and force a shutdown, or we stop automatic creation of accounts. True, the captchas would be a bit of an accessibility problem, but most sites susceptible to bots (e.g. Yahoo, Hotmail) already use them and provide an audio version of the captcha for those who can't see well. That shouldn't be hard to code for those who know how to do those things (even I have an idea, and I only know C++ and QBasic). But I digressed. It's a matter of what we value more: the Wiki as a whole, or a one-time accessibility hassle. Titoxd 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Borderline Spam linking

OK so its not as interesting as combating spam bots, but could someone else take a look the recent edits by User:Macukali. They've largely been linking to ozhanozturk.com which appears to be a semi-commercial Turkish encyclopedia, so would pretty much count as spam linking. However the linked articles frequently do appear to contain quite a bit more information than Misplaced Pages article. -- Solipsist 13:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, definately borderline. It says it's the Encyclopedia of Turkey, but every page has Amazon affilate links. I wouldn't think it was so bad if it were a few articles, but this is definately blatent spam linking. Of course, I would like a third opinion before reverting :) ∞Who?¿? 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a warning about linkspamming might be more in order than reverting. The comments on his talk page indicate he has been a valuable contributor in the past. He might just not be aware that linking from multiple articles like that may be considered spamming. --GraemeL 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same thing after I visited the userpage. I thought it was a new user that I seen in the user creation log. Looks like a good contributor, so it should be a nice note. ∞Who?¿? 13:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks like we are all of the same mind, so I've dropped the user a note. The best next step might be to help organise some collaboration in bringing some of the linked information into Misplaced Pages - not that I can think of the best project group who might want to help. -- Solipsist 19:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback on VFU

Just got this note from User:172 on my talk page. I'm not sure it's defined abuse as yet, but if anyone feels they have remarkable diplomatic skills today it looks like we could do with application of them - David Gerard 13:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello agian. I need the help of an admin at the moment; and you the one I recognized on RC. An editor keeps loading up Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion with rambling, incoherent personal attacks, such as Ordinarily, I know that these people are best left ignored. But what Silverback is doing on multiple pages is starting to look like the kind of obsessive stalking behavior that warrants admin attention. If you have time, please take a look. Regards, 172 | Talk 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi - he's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes. --csloat 18:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing (or very little) will be done about this (same with Ultramarine, etc.). Red baiters are not and never have been subject to the same rules everyone else is expected to adhere to, for what should be obvious reasons. Let us, at least, be honest about this. El_C 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, am not much into reading tea leaves, so would you mind letting me know the "what should be obvious reasons"? --Calton | Talk 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The rule of imperialists over the planet; their bought-off 1st World labour aristocracy viz. WP editorial demographic. El_C 02:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there an English translation -- or at least a verb -- available for that? --Calton | Talk 04:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh-oh. I didn't see the request for diplomatic skills, I just happened to notice 172's post on David's page and went remove (conservatively) some of Silverback's personal attacks from VfU, leaving a matter-of-fact note, before coming here. Anyway, please click on 172's link, and don't forget to scroll down to the bit about his probable real life immorality and deceit. I certainly consider that to be abuse. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Silverback is merely behaving as 172 is behaving and they should instead seek mediation since they are both flaming at this point. Could someone find the link to where it all started since this seems to have been going on for a long time.--MONGO 02:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm sorry, I'm incredulous here. Do you really not find the bits by Silverback that I removed outrageous? And you think 172 posted anything remotely like that..? Where..?Bishonen | talk 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well this comment shortly prior doesn't appear to me to be an attempt to calm things down. As I said, they both look like they're behaving badly.--MONGO 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please pay closer attention to the chronology: your lack of morality in small matters like this, does not speak well for how you probably behave in the rest of your life where the tempting spoils of immorality and deceit are greater. No wonder you favor authoritarian regimes, you only know how to take what you want, you don't know how to earn . El_C 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I was merely defending myself by calling his attacks ridiculous. Some of his attacks have compared me to Holocaust deniers; he has continued that line of attack even after I told him that I am particularly sensitive to it, given that my parents are concentration camp survivors, while the rest of their families largely disappeared. Right now, I am ignoring him on the undeletion page. As a result, his attacks are no longer being rebuked. 172 | Talk 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Redbaiting should not be tolerated, and I'm leaning towards chucking a block at Silverbuck... Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't exactly redbaiting-- it's just baiting me personally. Most of the articles where I removed the "Category:Totalitarian dictators" were on rightwing dictators. 172 | Talk 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've left him a message in his talk so maybe that will help? Anyway, the comments by Silverback are not that dissimilar to those he has to fight off from others, and has had to from time to time. The "insults" extend further back in time than that one above as well. A quick examination of his talk page and or his commentary in article talk indicates to me that in light of the types of articles he dallies in, with the liklihood that there is going to be much spirited and somewhat hostile debate, I think he does fairly well dealing with those that are in opposition to his evidence. I can also say the same for most of the users he encounters...I dunno, to me a personal attack is something like a death threat or calling my mom something bad, but that is my perspective.--MONGO 04:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I find that response too anectodal, I'm afraid. Please aim at a more comprehensively documented (that is, at all) narrative to substantiate the substance and scope of your claims. El_C 04:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not an Rfc on the issue of whether Silverback is acting or writing wrongly about 172 and I don't have time to research all the evidence. I was merely stating that from my perspective, that Silverback deals with things as well...such as this apparent wikistalking whereby 172 shows up in the midst of talkpage where Silverback is writing to someone else. Your "that is, at all" comment is, well, baiting.MONGO 04:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own a priori leaning strikes me of baiting, actually. Thanks anyway. El_C 04:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

El C, explain please as I feel that you are trying to insult me for reaons I do not understand.--MONGO 04:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't insult, it works against my own interests. In answer to your querry, I felt your comment worked toward lessening from the sort of personal attack I cited above. El_C 04:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Either way, I've told them to get their attacks off VFU and file an RFAr against each other if necessary. Votes for Undeletion is to consider pages, not user conduct. Titoxd 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

He's reverted my removal of {{dubious}} twice. I'm on my second revert myself, so I'm outta there. Titoxd 05:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

He has not only been restoring the attacks, but adding new ones. What I am supposed to do? If I respond to them, I'll be accused of provoking him. If I ignore them, they were will appear to many that I don't have a response, because they are the truth. 172 | Talk 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

I think that you should be informed of an incident which has occurred on the Macedonian Slavs page. A terrible edit war by moving pages has occurred between the users Bomac, Chronographos, REX and Miskin; and now the article has spread over the following pages: Macedonian Slavs, Macedonians (ethnicity), Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (nation). Currently the main article is located at Macedonians (nation) and the talk page is at Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). There are many double redirects and, to be brief, it is a nightmare. It will need fixing and preferably, blocking until this dispute has been resolved. I might also help if someone had a word with the disputing parties. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, could someone please have a look at these pages, because they are a mess! REX 20:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What a mess :\. I'll see what I can do.... Ryan Norton 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, both the article and talk page are protected from moves and the double redirects are cleaned up. Ryan Norton 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Hi, I need help with the Spanish version of WP. There are a number of people (mainly spanish)who insist on using the "Gibraltar" page to air their sour grapes over the fact that Gibraltar is British, and to insult, spout their propaganda, or just outright lie about Gibraltar. Even when they do get facts straight they are often as far fom NPOV as it is possible to be. WP, as I understand it is not a discussion forum, nor a place to blacken the name of another country just because you do not agree with their democratic decisions. Even some admins have joined in, abusing their powers to block me from making edits, i.e. Dodo, Ecemaml, Sanbec. As there are a number of spaniards using WP, but not many Gibraltarians they are "ganging up" and steam-rolling the page......of course any "consensus" decision is geared to put whatever they feel like, totally ignoring realitiy, truth and neutrality.

I simply do not know what can be done about this, as Admins are involved. If they wish to sound off their frustrations about Gibraltar, or just trade lies or insults, then they should find another forum for this....or just grow up and get a life. I am pretty sure this is not the purpose of WP.

Please help someone.

Many Thanks --Gibraltarian 17:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing the admins on en: can do about disputes on other Wikipedias. --cesarb 17:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks are global Misplaced Pages rules which no single Misplaced Pages can overrule. If you think, that there is a demonstrable violation of these rules on es:, you should bring the point to the global mailing list wikipedia-l

Of course it is by far preferable to resolve this within es:

Pjacobi 21:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You might try asking simply for an additional paragraph or a note at the endo of the article entitled "Another Perspective", saying something like This article in the Spanish Misplaced Pages presents a Spanish perspective on Gibraltar well. Many residents of Gibraltar and others in the United Kingdom and elsewhere might disagree with some of the facts and perspectives presented here. Other views can be found at . If nothing else, such a request might shame them into being a little more evenhanded or at least allowing a link to sources of other perspectives. alteripse 01:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 9

(Moved from my talk page)

I was looking over one of the deletion logs randomly, when I saw this... The log is a mess. I can't tell which nominations were properly closed or not. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see it's a mess. Unfortunately I don't have much time these weeks to deal with such. At first glance, it appears to be a mix of two things... User:SimonP deleted a bunch of articles without closing the VFD noms. And the Pending Deletion Bot deleted some other things a couple months later, which is likely when the Block Compress Bug was fixed. I'd say query at AN/I to look over it, but also at first glance the nominations have been properly processed but not closed. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Unified captcha discussion

I've seen many independent suggestions in the above vandalbot discussions about using captchas, so I think there should be a section for discussion of this issue.

Personally, I am completely opposed to making captchas mandatory for anything. Excluding people with accessibility issues would be 100% pure anti-wiki. How about this: require a valid email address to register an account, and only allow 1 account to be registered per email per day. This would pose no accessibility issues, and would allow people to have more than one account (for e.g. bots); it would just throttle account creation independent of IP address.

Fire away. ~~ N (t/c) 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that will scare off lots of people (they need to give their email and they need to jump through more hoops) and will do absolutely nothing against vandals (anyone can get their hands on as many emails as they want). I doubt Captcha's will do much good either, but I see some use against spam bots. I think Tim or Brion is working on creating something that requires the user to solve a captcha if they want to add an URL to a page that's on the spam blacklist. --fvw* 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's really easy to create a Yahoo or Hotmail account anyway. Although Yahoo uses captcha, they also have a voice read captcha for those users who can't see the letterings very well. --AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Many, many, many sites require email verification - in fact, ones that don't are rare in my experience. Also, a lot of free email sites now use captchas, and if a vandal finds one that doesn't, writing code to automatically register an account and grab the email would be enough work to discourage most vandalic types. I can't see it discouraging anybody, as editing from an IP would still be possible, and people who don't have an email account would probably not be that interested in a WP account either. Regardless of whether email verification is implemented, though, captchas are still a bad idea (although the particular "blacklisted site" situation isn't that bad, because people needing to do that should be rare and they can always ask another user). ~~ N (t/c) 18:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

True, anon IPs would be allowed to edit, but we would have the IP and we wouldn't need Checkuser or anything like that. It would make it much easier to maintain this site (it's in the Top 50 in Alexa rankings, we already have a "kick me" sign on our backs!) Titoxd 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Requiring supplying an e-mail address would turn off a lot of users. I've never bothered to register for Bugzilla for this very reason. -- Curps 20:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could require a captcha or an email address. Even hashcash as a third option. Look, Misplaced Pages can't stay perfectly open forever. The new user log is half vandalbots right now. ~~ N (t/c) 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Captcha and hashcash? Several redundant layers of security are good. Titoxd 00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. All three of these methods have unique accessibility problems (some users can't use captchas, some will be inconvenienced by providing an email, some will be unable to do hashcash due to a slow computer or inability to run software), so perhaps they could all be implemented and just one required. I realize, of course, this would be a large coding task. ~~ N (t/c) 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking billions of bad bots

Can the Mediawiki software support billions of indefinite blocks? It should... the only limit should be database storage space.

An indefinite block should theoretically only have to be checked once, at login time: if you're blocked you can't log in. However, we have this twist that indefinitely blocked users can still log in, so we have to do a check with each edit, which may eventually become inefficient if we accumulate a very large number of indefinite blocks (dozens or hundreds a day, every day).

At some point, we may want to have two block lists: an edit-block list (the current one, checked on each edit) and a login-block list (checked only at login time). In this scheme, indefinitely blocked users would temporarily be added to the edit-block list whenever they log in, but then they would be automatically logged out after 24 hours (either individually, or with a daily or weekly en masse logout), and dropped from the edit-block list.

-- Curps 20:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It used to be a problem (hence the postponement of the open proxy blocker bot), but these days access to the block list is all done indexed and is O(log n); it shouldn't be a problem. Too many range blocks would hurt, but I don't see that happening any time soon. --fvw* 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned it above, but it probably got blended in. I would think this would be the extreme circumstance that would warrant account deletions. We have 100's of obvious vandalbot names, and I'm not sure it's going to effect anyone seeings they're all indef blocked anyways. I don't mean to have all the stupid names under usernameblock deleted, just the random character ones that have little to no chance of recreation. ∞Who?¿? 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's fine by me, I think there was some plan to have a dev go through all accounts with fewer than 100 edits and an indef block and delete them a while back, which would be nice for neatness purposes. --fvw* 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no point in keeping usernames like User:Kd9dn38d9 or any other random permutation of characters that no one would ever use. Worse yet, if someone wants to use them (although I would recommend some sort of psychyatric examination if that were the case), they're used by a vandalbot. Titoxd 00:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to delete accounts with fewer than 100 edits. Deleting accounts with zero edits would go a long way: we currently have just under 500,000 accounts, but only about 95,000 have made one or more edits. If space is really an issue, one could easily get rid of those 400,000 dormant accounts. --MarkSweep✍ 06:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Threats on George W. Bush

I'm assuming that this is probably just empty bluster from User:24.140.78.123 (now blocked for 1 hour), but it's slightly disturbing all the same.--Scimitar 22:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Crash Misplaced Pages by sending spyware"? This is just an empty-headed script kiddy. Ignore. There are much more pressing issues. ~~ N (t/c) 23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, could someone please go fix the colour of User:Jimbo Wales? --fvw* 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Home of the vandal bot?

From the block log:

• 15:18, October 13, 2005, Brion VIBBER blocked 83.92.131.0/24 (expires 15:18, October 14, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (Spawning vandalbot accounts)

And it's been all quite for the half-hour since then.

Anyone else in favor of blocking this IP block for say a month? Dragons flight 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If it works, yeah, we can always change it if it causes complaints. The only thing that surprises me is that I blocked 83.92.128.0/18 yesterday and it didn't stop anything. --fvw* 23:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate to say I told you so.. :-) --fvw* 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To be sure of getting the vandalbot, we may need to go to blocking 83.88.0.0/13 - the entire tele.dk IP space. --Carnildo 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked 83.92.128.0/18 for two hours, which comes up as their ADSL pool. This may or may not have any effect. Dragons flight 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, after 20 more minutes of account creations, I'm canceling that as having had no impact. Dragons flight 00:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it time to unprotect then? --cesarb 23:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I still see apparent vandalbot accounts being created after the block was placed, but let's see if it can still edit. I've unprotected this page and WP:RFAr for the moment. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The new user log is currently about half vandalbots. Clearly this is not enough. ~~ N (t/c) 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IP blocks don't stop account creation, they just stop use of the accounts. --Carnildo 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

They should also stop account creation. This is spamming the logs and creating more work for the RC patrol. Is there a bugzila request for that already? --cesarb 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure that blocked IPs weren't allowed to create new accounts. Dragons flight 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong. I just did the test by blocking myself, letting the autoblock trap my IP, and it still allowed me to register a new account. So it seems like the vandal may be blocked from editing but can still get away with creating accounts ad nauseum. Dragons flight 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys, Curps is running a blockbot that is hitting every one of the vandal accounts. Don't waste your time blocking, it's being done. We've set up an emergency monitoring station on IRC at #wikipedia-en-newusers, where the feed displays every user account that is created and every account that is blocked. If you'd like to help, or would like to watch Curps' bot fight the vandal bot (and Curps is winning, hands down) join us. -- Essjay · Talk 00:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've noted this at the top of the log (see MediaWiki:Newuserlogpagetext). ~~ N (t/c) 00:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please post a description of how it decides what to block or not? This should be made plain on-Wiki. -Splash 01:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have asked him. ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Giving that out that would be a *very* bad idea. Tintin 01:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Agreed. --cesarb 01:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not give away any information, the vandal reads this too. -- Curps 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The vandal is more than capable of lurking in the IRC channel where I presume this has already been described. As it stands, a human needs to verify each block. If we knew what it wouldn't block, that wouldn't be a problem. Blocks should not be carried out according to secret formulae. -Splash 01:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who 'needs to know' e-mails Curps --Doc (?) 01:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Brion has fixed the bug; blocked IPs can no longer create new accounts. (And I agree with Tintin; don't tell the vandals how we're getting them, it will defeat the purpose). There are humans reviewing each block in real time. -- Essjay · Talk 01:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(Just in case that wasn't clear) The attack is over, for the moment. -- Essjay · Talk 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The user creation log is back to normal. But do we know if it's that we won the battle, or if it is that the vandalbot just got tired and went to bed? Titoxd 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be too much of a coincidence the vandal deciding to go to bed just about the same time Brion fixed the bug. --cesarb 01:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To all of you who helped with this, please accept an Anti-Vandalism Barnstar from me for your great work, with the exception of brion, who fixed the bug, and drini, who ran the bot in the IRC channel to stream all user creations; I've awarded special barnstars to those two. (Curps already received the Defender of the Wiki for running the block bot, so I have awarded the Anti-Vandalism barnstar.) Thanks, everyone, for your great work! -- Essjay · Talk 01:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking for opinions

Two fairly petty things, especially when compared to vandlebots, but life moves on, eh?
While attempting to convince a user not to use a transcluded signature, I noticed that the signature template itself was protected:

• 21:51, 3 August 2005 User:Mkmcconn protected User:Mkmcconn/sig (a signature template is a target for mischief)

While looking at that, I noticed that this same user had applied protection to another page:

• 12:42, 4 September 2005 User:Mkmcconn unprotected St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (merged version has not drawn comment. Lifting protection to see if collaboration works from here on.)
• 00:47, 4 September 2005 User:Mkmcconn protected St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (Anon is inserting biased material, reverting attempts to render it neutral; protecting to encourage collaboration.)

In that interval, he's made changes to the protected page somewhat in line with discussion on the talk page, while stating "this doesn't mean endoresment, etc" as is the standard. But considering that he'd edited that page before and that this page was hardly heavily vandalized, was this appropiate? Oh, and what about the signature template protection, too?
brenneman 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is petty indeed. Mkmccon is not the only user to use a signature template, nor the only one to protect it (see Misplaced Pages:Protected_page#Subpages_and_boilerplates). As noted in the previous link, the appropriateness of protecting one's own subpages is disputed, and using a template for one's signature is also discouraged, but in the absence of a strong consensus for or against these things, they are generally ignored.

The protection issue would appear more serious, but it happened over a month ago and raised no objections from any participant in the edit war over that page. It may have been a technical violation of the rules, or it may have been simple ignorance, or it may have been a slip. In the absence of any previous attempt at discussing the issue with Mkmcconn, it's hard to tell.

It seems, from the invisible disclaimer above, and the visible disclaimer in the first sentence, that you knew full well that this might be considered petty. In light of that, why did you bring it here at all? Mkmcconn's talk page and edit history indicate that he is an exemplary user; I see nothing to indicate that actually trying to discuss things with him before shouting them in the town square might be fruitless. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I brought it here because I was unclear as to the appropiateness of the action and expected calm and rational discourse thereof. Your slightly hysterical response is certainly not what I expected. My understanding of page protection was that it was to be a "last resort" and that editing a protected page was very bad form. You could have provided the link with a bit less finger-waving. Thank you.
brenneman 04:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I was perfectly calm and rational while writing the above, and I do not think my tone was even slightly hysterical. It was sharp, but that was intended: it is also extremely bad form to complain about a user behind his back before even trying to discuss your problems with him. If you simply wanted an opinion on whether or not certain actions were appropriate, you did not have to name any names. You're welcome. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but phrases like "shouting in the town square" and "behind his back" really aren't perfectly calm and rational. Clearly you see this as some sort of attack upon an "exemplary user", an appearance I attempted to explicitly avoid by stating the context of the question. All of our actions are up for review all the time, and asking for an opinon on another's actions should not result in castigation.
brenneman 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Signature templates are what makes the database crash. They should be transcluded and deleted. Alphax  05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I and Adam1213

This morning I got a little irritated with the way User:Adam1213 was not using proper topic subjects on my talk page, seemingly despite explanations and suggestions. So I resorted to block him for 1 hour. User:Pakaran unblocked him almost immediately, claiming he had said on the IRC channel he understood the proper etiquette. For me, the matter is settled now, but Adam1213 himself seems still angry at me.

As this might constitute abuse of AdministrativePower®, I hereby request other admins, and Adam1213 himself, to express their opinion about the incident here. — JIP | Talk 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You were way out of line, but you seem to realize this, so . . . um . . . take a deep breath, add the necessary headers to poorly formatted messages, and don't do it again. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You had me worried there for a minute. The Rouge Administrators are just about to roll out our new service offering: Abuse of AdministrativePower ... "Twice the hassle from half the admin."

You'll read all about it here later, I'm certain.

Mirv's right. As far as Adam1213 goes, little things like an earnest apology go a long way I've found. FeloniousMonk 06:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. You admit that you applied a block because you were irritated, for a time; this suggests you acted not by forming a clearly reasoned conclusion that a blockable offense had been commited, but rather by momentarily giving in to your emotions. This is the danger of the Dark Side, O formidable WikiJedi. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Irritation should be somewhere in there too. But hey, nothing that a refreshingly honest attitude like yours can't fix. You realized the mistake, apologized, and even offered to help him set up a complaint. Good Jedi. :) meremortal 06:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards