Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 1 August 2009 (→Reboot: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:13, 1 August 2009 by Xeno (talk | contribs) (→Reboot: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice


    Topic ban on User:Finneganw at Anna Anderson

    I wish to request a topic ban on User:Finneganw (previous account: User:Aussiebrisguy) at Anna Anderson on three grounds:

    • Civility. Finneganw has goaded other editors, e.g. , despite being advised against it . Further warnings were issued: . Nevertheless, another attack occurred , and another warning was issued .
    • Verifiability. Finneganw insists on removing from the article or denying the validity of any source in the article when it disagrees with his own point of view. For example, he claims that a biography written by Robert K. Massie, a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford and won the Pulitzer Prize for biography, cannot be used as a source because it's "wildly unverifiable rubbish" . There are no sources supporting that viewpoint.
    • Trolling. Finneganw's talk page contributions consist largely of repeating the same unvarying statements, e.g. accusing his opponents of being rabid: .

    Two years ago, Finneganw's previous accounts User:Greergarsony, User:Marrygracer, User:Elizabethcrane, User:Deustchman, User:Harrietbrown, User:Alexiacolby and User:Aussiebrisguy were blocked after disruption at Anna Anderson. While his behaviour has improved (I don't see any further instances of sockpuppetry), it is still concerning, and still contributes to a toxic atmosphere at the Anna Anderson page, which has meant that normal editing there is impossible. I do not see any evidence of disruption on other pages, consequently, I feel that a ban on any contribution at Anna Anderson or Talk:Anna Anderson or its sub-pages would be the best way to prevent further poor behaviour. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    As someone involved on Talk:Anna Anderson, I'm tired of Finneganw's incivility and dismission. He's so blinded by his disdain of Anastasia=AA supporters that he's gone ahead to accuse a well-intentioned administrator (John Kenney), who is trying to prevent this article from turning into The Skeptic's Dictionary, of being a AA supporter. Although Aggiebean has not engaged in the same level of incivility and otherwise disruptive behavior, she too is so blinded her biases that she refuses to accept the valid policy concerns raised by several administrators, including myself. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly support a topic ban on User:Finneganw, having been asked to look at this earlier as an uninvolved admin. One way or another, Anna Anderson is the unhelpful mess that it is owing mostly to the unencyclopedic sway Finneganw (under all those usernames) has had on it. All reliable sources clearly support the assertion that Anderson was an utter, straightforward fraud, but the article does nothing towards showing readers how she fell into it and pulled it off for so long, which very likely only leads some readers to thinking the article is so biased and lacking that maybe she was Anastasia, which is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Completely disinterested observer checking in. Is there a possibility of introducing a mediation process and have the individuals involved in the content issue, vent there first? I realize that there is also an issue of temperament and decorum in respect to the heated discourse that has been engendered by the topic, but perhaps mediation may be of use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
    There have been mediations before, first one by User:Trusilver, then one by User:AlexiusHoratius, and one now. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    Why should there be mediation on a user who has had numerous accounts blocked previously for the same behavior? It's obvious they're not interested in collegiality. (Unbiased observer). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    At the risk of my own wikipedia life, I am here try to right an injustice to plead his case. What happened to Finneganw was very unfair and biased. This man has fought tirelessly against POV vandalism, disruptive editing and discredited info being passed off as fact in the article for 3 years. In the past, it was never him who got in trouble, it was the outrageous Anderson supporters who attacked him. Now we seem to have a change of attitude due to one particular mod being swayed by his friend who espouses the pro Anderson point of view. This is not fair as Finneganw has done nothing wrong. ChatNoir24, on the other hand, has been very disruptive and quite over the top for years while touting his agenda which has long since been proven wrong. He has been banned, suspended and warned several times. Yet now, since a newcomer to the discussion agrees with this incorrect viewpoints, Chat is okay and sudddenly, after three years of it being the other way around, Finneganw is the bad guy? I do hope before anything is done to this kind person (Finneganw) that the entire history of the AA talk page even the archives and history be reviewed.

    As for what is happening now, it is a strange anomaly that is not fair but being passed off as so. Due to wiki demanding everything be sourced, this falls right into the hands of the Anderson supporters since they have loads of pro Anderson propaganda to use, with much less being written after the DNA tests proved her a fraud. What has been written many times borrows from older sources, and doesn't say in so many words THIS STORY IS NOT TRUE. Because of this, a lot of really stupid stuff that could not possibly have really happened since we know Anderson wasn't Anastasia is being sneaked into the article using the excuse that we don't have a reliable source to say it isn't so, therefore it can stay. I believe this to be the wrong thing for the site, as wiki needs its articles to be up to date and accurate. With the final 2009 DNA tests proving all members of the Romanov family are now found and accounted for, Anderson is proved without a doubt to be a fraud, meaning some of the things she claimed are now impossible. We should use a little common sense and logical deduction here and leave out these things. The only real 'source' I can show you is the DNA, so far no one has written a book mentioning each AA incident one by one and specifically stating 'this couldn't have happened', but this does not mean they should be in the article. As one other admin told us before, wiki does not regard all opinions equally and are under no obligation to give equal time to a lopsidedly wrong and disproven POV. This is the case with AA. For 3 years now, it has been the Anderson supporters who have been stopped from doing this, but now thanks to the addition of the pro Anderson JohnK I(yes, he is, regardless of his denials, I've seen these arguments for years on many sites, NO ONE but NO ONE backs her that avidly, actively, prolifically and strongly if not a supporter) backed by Dr. Kiernan, it has completely turned the opposite way, which is the wrong thing for the article if it is to be fact based and verifiable and free of myths and allusions to a 'mystery' that no longer exists. If anyone has any comments or questions please answer here or on my talk page, I have much evidence to back myself up if anyone will please take the time to listen. Free Finneganw!Aggiebean (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009

    ...Can a motion be 'quadrated'? (Too late to be 'seconded'.)===

    • For what little it is worth, I am a royal pain, and I too plead for the topic ban on user Finneganw. How the stench of his rot has escaped your noses I cannot tell. And I will further beg you to take note of the user who has posted above, aggiebean, who has if nothing else been a staunch defender and enabler of Finneganw. I see Finnegan is still posting away, so I guess court's adjourned. There weren't this many admins involved in my ass-kickin' regarding Anna Anderson, I'll tell you that!75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)--Sorry I posted again to state that I accidentally messed up a tiny end-portion of the signature of the preceeding post. Also I wanted to call to your attention that Finneganw has had in the past protection from adminstrator Nishkid64, or perhaps from DrKiernan himself. I am blocked from posting messages on Finneganw's talk page, and I am nearly 100% certain Nishkid64 is responsible for this. Investigate those who enabled Finneganw before you slap a topic block on him. Brought to you by the Revolution.75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    Finneganw has responded at User talk:Bzuk#Mediation - Anna Anderson: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=304231347. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Support topic ban of User:Finneganw from the Anna Anderson article. If the ban is intended to improve the editing climate, he should also be restricted from the article's Talk page. Keeping him off the article proper would not have much effect, since Finneganw has only edited the article itself three times in July (the last time on July 8) while he has edited the talk page 128 times in July. Finneganw has been active on this article over a long period, and seems to have placed himself on a permanent war footing due to the former activities of Anna Anderson supporters. (A quick glance shows that the present article is not at all pro-Anderson, so his militance seems unneeded). His present attitude seems to be getting in the way of normal article improvement, and the sharp and negative comments about the abilities of other editors are not helping. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I also support this. I've been aware of problems around Anna Anderson for a long time as I have previously had to deal with Finneganw and his various and numerous socks. Frankly, he was lucky he wasn't banned as his socking was extensive, disruptive and extended to emailing me under a female persona (User:Alexiacolby), informing me it was time for me to go on a lengthy wikibreak because, according to him, my actions as an administrator trying to contain his disruptive socking and block evasion were basically just "trash" and "vandalism", appealing to me "woman-woman" and chastising me for treating a fellow "woman" that way (blocking very, very obvious and transparent sockpuppets). I think his disruption of the articles is extremely problematic as he is so fixated and seems unable to embrace Misplaced Pages's policies and due to the long term nature of it, the numerous blocks under various accounts etc, it seems he's not getting the Clue. The Anna Anderson article seems to be the centre of the problems (though in the past it has extended to various royalty and puppeteering (truly) articles a well). I also suspect that there are COI issues as well but that's not really got anything to do with my support of this proposal which is based entirely on his behaviour. I have also been concerned with the amount of personal commentary and battleground type editing that has been going on at that talk page in general, not just with him. Rather than dealing with the content, the editors there seem to have been spending an awful amount of time talking about each other. Hopefully with Finneganw taken out of the scenario that will improve but I recommend looking out for more socks and enforcing behavioural policies and guidelines on that talk page. Sarah 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    This is a plea for justice. Banning user Finneganw from Anna Anderson in totality is fair and just. This user, immersed deep in deliberate sock puppetry and personal attacks, is the reason I have been indefblocked from the subject and even from talk pages of other editors. I deserved what I got for what I did. However, Finneganw has over the course of 3 years chased away valuable editors, casual users and even administrators...all people who could not bear his attacks. He successfully coordinated his hounding attacks in tandem with user aggiebean, though I do not address that user here. Now, DO YOUR JOBS and topic-ban Finneganw. It is a user like Finneganw that opens the doors to Revolution. ;)75.21.101.157 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ignore the IP's comments. This is a conceited and annoying (who refers to themselves as the Revolution?) individual who used to go under the username "RevAntonio" before being blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    (removed another IP comment) For the record, I support a topic ban on Finneganw. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    I think it's time to close this thread. I have placed "Finneganw is prohibited from editing Anna Anderson, Talk:Anna Anderson, and subpages of Talk:Anna Anderson." as a community sanction at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. I do note, however, that Finneganw has voluntarily avoided the Anna Anderson page for the last seven days. DrKiernan (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    I think an uninvolved admin should close this and notify the user what the outcome of the discussion is and very clearly set down the terms. Sarah 03:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    By the way, 144.134.177.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) currently editing the Anna Anderson article is Finneganw. He edits on IPs on a couple of different Telstra IP ranges and in the past when he's been blocked he has simply logged out and continued on his merry way with dynamic Telstra IPs. It's clear he intends to continue editing the article whether logged in or out so I think this needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin and he needs to be informed as to the outcome of the discussion. Sarah 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Sure. DrKeirnan (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Wikia on spam blacklist?

    Thekohser (talk · contribs) has proposed that Wikia be added to the spam blacklist, because of malicious advertising software on the site. I would like everyone's opinion on this matter. While I agree that Wikia is unlikely to pass WP:ELNO and WP:RS as most Wikia wikis are not managed by a substantial user base and that Wikia is a commercial site and Misplaced Pages is not, I think that adding it may cause too much disruption. Any thoughts? Triplestop x3 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    • If the site is putting up malicious ads like the link says, then maybe it should go on the blacklist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think it can go on the blacklist in a meaningful way while on the m:Interwiki map unless we change the interwiki links to external links in places like template:Wikia and prohibit the use of non-templated internal links to Wikia. Kusma (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • What malicious advertising software are we talking about? Could we have an example or a link or some such? I don't see anything at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#wikia.com, and an editor there say the WikipediaReview report is overblown.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Look at the first entry in this link. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Let's conduct Misplaced Pages business on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
              • You wanted what advertising software I was talking about, I linked you to it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the software on Wikia that is being discussed. It doesn't matter what harmful software is on Misplaced Pages Review.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Maybe I am not making myself clear either, the proposal link (from above) links to the discussion on Misplaced Pages Review where they talk about the ad software on Wikia. I am not going on Wikia and let my computer get blasted by whatever ad software they have. Go to Misplaced Pages Review (first posting) and you will see the ad software being discussed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • If the only evidence of a problem exists on Misplaced Pages Review then this probably isn't a serious complaint.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • For what it's worth, I just spent a fair amount of time over on Wikia trying to reproduce any sort of malicious advertising like that mentioned in the WR discussion. While it has certainly reminded me why I normally use umpteen kinds of ad-blocking and tracker-blocking stuff, I didn't encounter anything that evil, even using Internet Explorer. While we shouldn't hold Wikia above all possible suspicion, I don't see any actual evidence that we should regard them as serving malware. It is worth noting that Greg Kohs' well-known business ventures place him in direct competition with Wikia; I don't say that to accuse him of anything, only to note that everyone has a certain partiality where their own self-interest is concerned, and that can affect one's judgement. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    These attacks on the veracity of what was exposed by User:Krimpet (her track record, if you care) are way out of line. She's owed an apology. -- Thekohser 12:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    • I have to say, I agree with this. This is Krimpet - she has the technical know how, and isn't exactly a thicky. The forum maybe questionable for some but the person behind the posts deserves some respect. Viridae 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Has anyone been able to reproduce this? I don't doubt Krimpet, but this might have been an isolated case, or it might have been taken care of already. And, while we're at it, has anyone done the real world equivalent of asking the user on his talk page first? That is, has anyone asked people at Wikia about this? I would guess they won't be very happy about such ads on their site, either. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I gave up trying to work "with" Wikia after I informed them that I was (and others were) offended by a Wikia wiki advocating depraved physical abuse of children ("spanking art"), and the response from its co-founder whined to me that I may not have "made a complaint through the proper channels". -- Thekohser 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have not seen anything posted in this thread which would warrant an apology to Krimpet, actually. I do notice that the person starting this thread and demanding now the apology is also responsible for off-wiki canvassing for support for his position: "Krimpet, there is a formal way to suggest that a domain has become too aggressive with adware, in which it becomes suitable for discussion regarding placement on the spam blacklist. I hope others will weigh in, in favor of a blacklist inclusion. Let's end this hypocritical nightmare that Jimbo has imposed on us." Wouldn't it be more logical to focus on the lack of a recurring problem, indicating that blacklisting may be an overreaction? Or does your last line suggest another agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with malware requiring blacklisting? Fram (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Greg, you do a lot of good work on Misplaced Pages, and that is why you were welcomed back. The ArbCom decision overturning your community ban specifically addressed you engaging in battles in any form. One user reported you took a battle with him off Meta and on to here, and the defense was that user (who you had only just met) didn't act so great and look at all the good work you do. Will Beback reports this, but your history with him is the defense. Here, you are taking your anti-Wikia fight, that you continually hash out over on Meta with Angela Beesley and bring it to enwiki. We thought ArbCom's decision meant we'd get the Good Greg, which we all see in your edits, and lose the Endless Battles Greg. That's how the suspension was written. Whatever the merits of Krimpet's report, you are Wikia's greatest antagonist, particularly on Meta , and you shouldn't be bringing your anti-Wikia battle to enwiki. Your off-site canvassing certainly could have produced someone who is not under the directive to which you agreed. I'm sure many of your supporters on this site wonder why you make it so difficult for them. -->David Shankbone 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, an apology to Krimpet seems unwarranted. "This is Krimpet." doesn't excuse it from being a pretty poor report (not even a mention of which Wikia wiki this was) that is, as it stands, easily falsifiable. "Make the mistake of clicking a link to Wikia" says the report. I've just followed the link to Wikia wikia:Yellowikis:Special:Randompage ten times, in each of three different WWW browsers, both logged in and logged out (in case there was a difference), and seen nothing of what was described. The challenges to the veracity seem not only justified, but quite reasonable, given experimental results (I'm the second editor to have reported being unable to reproduce this.) entirely to the contrary. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I randomly swing through a bunch of wikis and didn't see anything of this nature (IE7). I don't think there's anything here unless some more documentation is offered. I don't think a couple generic screen caps are enough to blacklist something RxS (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    I can't reproduce the issue dispite pulling up a fair number of pages useing IE6 (incerdently IE6 can't even render the site very well). I did however see a lot of low end ads (penny stocks religions) and it's a known issue that the networks that serve them don't always catch the problematical ones before they go live. As a result it could have been limited to being a temporary problem.©Geni 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    I do think that it's highly likely that the 3rd party serving the ads are at fault, not Wikia (whether it would be better to tell Wikia to make sure the 3rd party gets their house in order, or sever their relationship, is above my paygrade, but you can probably guess where I stand on this). I do have to say that an apology to Krimpet IS required here, they came in with a good faith concern that Wikia could be used to infect other people's computers, and instead of an honest look at the situation, the first inclination is to say "IT MUST NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT'S ON WR, O NOES". I really thought we had moved beyond that idiocy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Why? This little flareup seems to confirm that inclination. Also, there is a world of difference between the position "I think WR is bad and you use WR so I think you are bad" and "I think WR is bad so I'm gonna take whatever they say with a grain of salt...or two". Protonk (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Except for the fact, you know, that the report (while it didn't quite have enough information to fully act on), was you know, true. Krimpet's a former administrator here, and while they are no longer editing here (pretty much chased off the project), they deservew at least a mininum of respect. Something that you seem to lack here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ahhh...., as the kids say. The report was true if we say "I went to page XYZ and it had malware", not if we take it to mean "wikia has malware" or even "wikia's ad servers have malware on a wide scale". "Not having enough information to act on" is a phrase which avoids the truth--gathering of more information falsified the report. Again, no one here has disparaged Krimpet personally. I'm sure s/he is a nice person and was a good admin. All we have done (or me, specifically) is say that WR is not a good font of information about all things Wales-related. I'm sorry that you decided this was a good 'teaching moment' to give me a little lesson about respect. It's not. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    In your haste to get in your bon mot, I think you missed seresin's post right below yours. that a good enough citation for you? SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    If taken in isolation and ignoring the comments made here (by betacommand, uncle g, geni, etc.) and at the blacklist talk page, maybe. Given that the preponderance of comments and my own searching (admittedly not on IE) point toward minimal or no problems, no, it isn't. And You miss the point. I didn't say that the claim "I encountered malware" was false. I said the secondary claims "wikia has malware" or "there is a broad malware problem" were false and the vector (WR) conflated the three claims. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've had the same ad at least twice while browsing wikia. ÷seresin 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This appears to be another situation of a webhost being infected with MS Antivirus (malware) Ive seen this about 200 times in the last year and a half working in the tech field. one of the advertising servers probably got hacked and lead to this breach. its not wikia's fault. β 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps Wikia should be blacklisted until they fix the problem, then they can be taken off. By the way, this isn't the first time that Misplaced Pages Review has helped identify a threat to Misplaced Pages's well-being. Thanks to WR-participant Krimpet for bringing this to someone's attention. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • So you're just ignoring the fact that four people so far have been unable to independently confirm this claim? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Except they have. Did you read the thread? Viridae 11:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You're currently asserting this in response to one of those four people. I know what my experimental results actually were, thanks, and so do the three others who have stated similar findings to mine. You don't get to re-state them for us. Please wipe the egg off your face, now. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Two people spin the roulette wheel a few times, and eventually they hit 00. You spin it a few times, it never lands on 00, and you conclude that therefore the other two people must be mistaken when they assert that 00 is on the roulette wheel? Badger Drink (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Don't construct questions based upon arguments of your own invention. Read what is actually written, above, instead. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • "You're currently asserting this in response to one two of those four people . I know what my experimental results actually were . ". No, sorry, still seems like we've got a case of Uncle Gomer racing to act like a smug asshole despite xyr faulty understanding of how either probability or rotating banner ads work (choose one or both). If that's not showing up at the grown-ups' table with yellow stuff smeared all over your face and hair while babbling about what messy eaters they are, I don't know what is. You may wish to consider adopting a more nuanced approach when chiming in on issues you don't quite understand. Badger Drink (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Based on exactly what, Betacommand? Your supposition? I must say I find it difficult to believe that webservers are having their administrators install malware on their servers in such large volumes. And if wikia is the vector, frankly, it doesn't really matter whether it is wikia, or an ad server. If an XSS vulnerability existed that allowed WP to be exploited, would you be arguing that it wasn't anything to worry about on WP, since the XSS vulnerability itself was tied to another site? Achromatic (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • based on the fact that I have seen this exact same behavior many times and many other examples that I have accumulated over the years working with computers and virus/malware outbreaks. MySpace, AOL and many others have been subject to similar breaches. the servers have been compromised by outside hackers who installed the malware. before commenting on complex topics its always best to do a little research first. ♠ β 08:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I would guess you don't really understand how such malware gets installed. No sysadmin of a legitimate company (which both Wikia and the company that hosts its ads are) is likely to deliberately install malware that generates such ads. Stuff like this gets added by people exploiting vulnerabilties in the security of their network. Wikia doesn't seem to host their own ads - or not all of them, at least - and since the problem is apparently coming from bad ads, I'd agree with Betacommand's assessment, and be more inclined to question whether doubleclick.net, as one example, has done enough to ensure the safety of its network. As noted on the forum link posted below, Wikia is trying to identify where the bad ad is coming from so they can put a stop to it. If they can't though, they probably should begin disabling all ads until the hosts get their own house in order. Also, as an aside, reading that report on WR, I would hardly agree that Krimpet deserves an apology. That read like a person with a major league chip on their shoulder and a serious hate-on for Misplaced Pages/Wikia jumping to massive conclusions. Frankly, the fact that they simply assumed that such an ad - which can only possibly damage Wikia's business - was deliberately placed by Wikia rendered the report completely worthless in my view. Thekosher's endorsement of Krimpet hardly helps. Resolute 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Report on one of the Wikia.com forums indicate that the "bad ad" is being served on multiple Wikia wikis. . So it's not on every ad being served, but the most recent report is yesterday (edit: No, if you look down, it's being served today, the 28th), so it IS still being served. SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    OK admins, please get Wikia on the blacklist now, before someone's computer gets hurt. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm really not sure it can go on the blacklist - we can blacklist external links, but not interwikis, surely? Shimgray | talk | 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    At the very least we should be contacting the Foundation and/or Jimbo, and telling them to either pull the ads on the Wikia side, or get the ad providers arse in gear to remove the virus-ads? SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Fozz, why would we contact "the Foundation" about a problem festering on Wikia, Inc. servers? I was told that the two entities are "completely separate". (Other than that nagging fact that Wikia is the Wikimedia Foundation's landlord for additional office space.) -- Thekohser 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Human decency.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Contacting Wikimedia would be useless; we can't do anything about it. Contact Wikia; reporting link for bad ads is here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Could you ban the site until it gets its house in order? Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    If anybody from Wikia is watching, you might want to read An Open Letter to Online Ad Networks This problem is big, and getting worse. I agree that Misplaced Pages should not link to any page distributing malware. Google automatically delists such pages. We should too. Jehochman 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Can we delist such pages? Misplaced Pages has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of links to Wikia wikis. It would take weeks to find and remove all those links, by which time Wikia will have fixed the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    There is an ongoing debate at Template:Wikia to add "NOFOLLOW" to outbound links to wikia. The consensus so far is that we should add NOFOLLOW to those links, but {{Wikia}} isn't the right place to do it. We would appreciate some technical know-how there as to the best solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    A few things

    1. We can talk about 'human decency' and what-not all day, but the practical facts are: we here in this thread have no real influence over the WMF. The WMF has no real influence over wikia. If you want to talk to the members of the WMF board or Jimbo who run Wikia about this, be my guest.
    2. Adding wikia to the spam blacklist doesn't block outgoing links to wikia. It just stops people from adding new links. We would be closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has left.

    Am I in the right about these two points? If so, is this discussion a reasonable course of action for us? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    The first hits the nail on the head, Protonk. Wikia & Mediawiki are two separate organizations -- although they share personnel, & in the past one has helped the other. The Foundation can make all sorts of threats at Wikia, but if the people over there don't want to do something, what is said or how it said won't matter. As for the second, IIRC from the last time I've had to handle pre-existing blacklisted URLs (that was a couple of years ago) what happens is when you try to edit a page with one of those, you can't save the change until the blacklisted external link is disabled. And if the URL is only a bad link for a short while -- which I assume would be the case with Wikia -- it would be more of a headache to blacklist them than a solution. But I don't know what else we could do to nudge a site to fixing a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Editing a page with existing blacklisted links was fixed in r34769, dated May 13 2008. See also bug 1505. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    main page image protections

    above is a listing of all images that have been on the main page without being protected. the timestamp is the first report and included is an eta of how long it was posted for. Ive been running an IRC reporting bot about this for a while but response times have been up to three hours. we need to get some method that will maintain protection of these images in order to prevent main page vandalism. β 07:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm. A significant number of these seem to be coming from DYK. I'll post a link here at WT:DYK. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Since those are all commons file, maybe it would be nice (with permissions from commons) if we could run bot that checked all the "main page feeds" (EG: DYK/PoTD/ect) and posted to their Request for Protection page a couple of days ahead of time requesting that they be protected and tagged with their appropriate template since we can now do cross site protection. Peachey88 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    According to this log, I definitely protected the image File:Trojan wavepacket.gif at 04:13, 2009-07-28 for 24 hours. But the above report says it was on Main Page without protection at 13:34, 2009-07-28 for five minutes? Am I missing something? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Aha, I deleted the image's c-uploaded copy at 13:28, 28 July 2009, but I am certain that at that time the image was already off the Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    re Peachey's suggestion: I suggested something like this before, but it was pointed out that it may not be fair, or practical, to protect an image on commons every time it is being used on some other project's MP (keeping in mind that en-wiki is not the only Misplaced Pages project that has DYK). That was a legitimate complaint, I think; and with that ruled out, I see no alternative to the gritty, painstaking work of uploading local images every couple hours (or at least every time an admin prepares one of the DYK queues). rʨanaɢ /contribs 11:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see with is wrong with asking commons to temporary protect the batch of them in a automated message to their board asking for it nicely because that way we don't need to manually upload it (and probably break some things, but i'm not expert at attribution and such) and they already do it for other projects that ask for it afaik and I have seen them do it for single images of ours before. Peachey88 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    You have that backwards. There is even a specific template on commons for protection of enwiki main page files. You all have to realize that they can't protect the images if they don't know which images need protection. For things like DYK, there usually isn't that great of a window from the time somebody decides it will go on the main page to the time that it actually is on the main page. I'm hardly concerned with 5 minutes of unprotection, to be honest. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    I know... i've even pointed that template out earlier and suggested a bot that automatically checks the queues (and I guess the current selection). If we wanted we could have the bot record what images it quryies as to prevent it from checking the same images multiple times to reduce possible load issues. Peachey88 13:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    You know? Ah, good. "... and they already do it for other projects that ask for it afaik and I have seen them do it for single images of ours before." threw me off. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Commons administrators are mixed on protecting en.wiki's images. See this conversation with a Commons admin. Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    I can't believe that we are the only Wiki having this kind of problems. Aren't there some where local uploads are disabled? It should be possible to create a software solution to this problem that allows us to fix one "flagged" version of a commons image for display here without touching things there. Kusma (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    I agree. A shortware solution to grab a specific version of the file to eliminate the need to upload and protect main page images would be a very good solution. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Any alternative to uploading local versions would be welcome. I might sound lazy for saying this, but uploading local files is a royal pain in the ass and Sisyphian-ly every day is no one's idea of fun. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be too difficult to write a bot to figure out what's going to be on the MP, upload it locally, and protect it. Similar bots (or scripts, at least) already exist for getting images from here to Commons. All we really need is someone with a toolserver account willing to set it up. A software update would be good too, but it seems like this would be a much easier solution. Hersfold non-admin 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    The bot as it was programmed before (MPUploadBot) didn't really work. The bot would upload files late, or would upload them after they were off the main page and deleted from en.wiki. This is because it depended on the link tables (the "list images on this page") which does not get updated instantaneously after every update to the page. On most pages it doesn't matter, but here it does. This is also why cascading protection is not instantaneous. See bugzilla:18483 for more. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    If some admin wants to write a bot all it would need to do is null edit (edit/save without changing anything) the main page before checking and uploading what ever images needed to be addressed. this would force a full refresh of all table links for that page on demand and make the cascade protection bug moot. I know its not recommended procedure but for a situation like the main page it would work. I cannot do or say more (I may have already over stepped) due to arbcom restrictions. β 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Beta, your IRC bot seems to be suffering from the same bug. MarkusHowell was removed from the Main Page on this diff at 20:35, yet your bot reported it still on the Main Page and unprotected. The Commons log for the file shows the image was always protected while on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    The above list is not entirely accurate, but we have been experiencing a significant problem with unprotected Commons images appearing on the main page via DYK.
    I've been checking Template:Did you know and all of the queues whenever I'm online (and protecting any unprotected images that I've encountered). I repeatedly reported the issue in this thread, and I eventually added this editnotice to all of the queues. When that didn't work, I began posting messages on the talk pages of the sysops who were inserting the unprotected images. Since then, the frequency seems to have been greatly reduced.
    However, there is a simple solution that has not yet been implemented. Template:Did you know is automatically updated by DYKadminBot (which transfers the content of the six queues at scheduled intervals). In other words, almost all DYK images are placed on the main page by that bot. DYKadminBot should simply verify that each image is protected (either locally or at Commons) and if it isn't, it should post a notification message instead of performing the update. I contacted Nixeagle (the bot's operator) both on-wiki and by e-mail weeks ago, and he/she has not responded (despite performing several edits since then). —David Levy 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    New subtopic: Why is Misplaced Pages so juvenile; things an admin can help to improve

    Someone who is not involved in Misplaced Pages asked me why Misplaced Pages is so "juvenile". They were referring to jargon like "sock of indef banned user". The topic below reminded me of the comment. This is added to AN to see if administrators would like to coin a more professional term and to see if we can re-establish professionalism in Misplaced Pages. Any ideas on new terminology or new approaches to maintaining order in editing? User F203 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe, we can refer it as "editor --- is exceeding one username per article"? It's a start. Keep ideas coming. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    There's nothing unprofessional or juvenile about calling a spade a spade. A user who creates false identities to bypass sanctions imposed is the juvenile, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sidebar: I've noted a lot of users have started using the word "professional" as a positive in regards to Misplaced Pages conduct. Did I miss something? --Smashville 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    The term "sockpuppet" is not limited to Misplaced Pages as it is general Internet jargon, so I don't know what that person's beef is. "Banned" is the same as everywhere else – meaning 'you're not welcome here'. MuZemike 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Exactly. If it ain't broke, why fix it? --Smashville 16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    I wonder if I missed something that you find the word 'professional' to be a problem when used to describe experienced or expected conduct on Misplaced Pages? It's a bad enough thing that Misplaced Pages has a policy eliminating professionals from editing in their subject area to begin with, that some small number of our editors might do our job competently enough to be described as professional is now bad too? I can't wait to see such a compliment used to push someone off the 'pedia now. A guarantee of permanent amateur hour from 14 year olds with dick jokes. great. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    No...I'm saying that my check must have been lost in the mail. --Smashville 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Besides the fact that we're not paid for what we do here, "professionalism" is not a good goal for behavior on Misplaced Pages. We're collaborators on a labor of love and should treat each other warmly, as other enthusiasts working on a hobby, not as people trying to "get the job done". I say this as someone who does have a professional career in RL and has no bias against people who have that mindset (because I tend to when at work). Keep it easy and breezy Wikipedians. -- Atama 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's the other thing. Misplaced Pages isn't my job...it's a hobby. I will keep an appropriate demeanor for an administrator, but the minute I start treating it like a job is the minute I take off from here. --Smashville 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Professionalism may be changing as a reflection on society. Many people view professionalism as a positive. For example, employees being kind to customers, not saying anything on their mind (instead of "you ugly, fat complainer who wants something free, just take a number" saying "I'll help you as soon as I finish this call"). On the other hand, I now see that some people think professionalism is bad, thinking that professionalism means working. This is a new definition to me. User F203 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think the point was the preponderance of wiki-speak wiki-jargon which remains impenetrable except for the most motivated wiki-geeks. I too yearn for normal English sans WP:ALPHABETSOUP. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    A glossary for new users might be helpful. Do we already have one somewhere? --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, WP:GLOSSARY. I'm also fairly certain there's a guideline or essay somewhere pointing out that newbies don't know the jargon, so full names and explanations should be used when they're likely to be around. I don't see the issue of using such terms in places like AN and ANI (ahem, the Admin's Noticeboard et al) where the majority of users reading these posts are going to be experienced and know what's being spoken to. Most of the time when acronyms are used, they're linked anyway, since it only adds a couple brackets and a WP: to it. I think this is already well covered. Hersfold non-admin 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    When dealing with a person who is new or otherwise unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies, I will never use acronyms or other jargon without explanation. I might say something along the lines of "read the WP:V guideline" but always in proper context. I think that's all anyone has to do, and I'm sure that's what most of us do. -- Atama 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Most societies or cultural groups have their own language, argot, or jargon which helps them to identify fellow members and exclude non-members. WP is no different in that regard. Wikimarkup is another example of this - there's no technical reason why WP couldn't have a WYSIWYG editor, even without raising the technological bar (i.e., using javascript). Tell your friend that this is WP's "secret handshake". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    So... was F203's friend's point that using jargon is "juvenile"? I thought juvenile behavior was making up new words to refer to vomit, or laughing at inappropriate sexual innuendos. How is "sock of indef banned user" an example of either? Now excuse me while I go for a hike on the Appalachian Trail... -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    The main purpose of jargon is to permit members of a group to concisely describe things specific to their group. To take an example from my profession (computer programming), I could say "the latest build segfaults on startup", or I could say "during the process of preparing itself for user interaction, the version of the program compiled from the current source code is terminated by the computer's operating system because it tries to access a location in the computer's random-access memory that it is not permitted to access". Which is more likely to be used -- and did you notice that even the "jargon-free" version contains technical vocabulary specific to the profession? --Carnildo (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Exactly. I'd have to ask this friend if s/he thinks doctors are juvenile because they use jargon? How about lawyers, or architects? Maybe s/he just used a poor choice of words, and meant "why the hell is it so hard to understand what they're talking about?" In which case, I point to Carnildo's comment: the jargon arose because it's quicker & easier for Wikipedians to understand what's going on. It's not intentionally made difficult for the layman to understand, anymore that particle physics was made specifically obfuscated for excluding the common man. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    'Socking' is an internet term with a relatively long pedigree. The internal operations terms of the 'pedia don't need to be massaged by customer service specialists into phrases that no one really uses for people who'll never really read them. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    Strange request

    Could anybody give me any insight into this rather odd message about help retiring a sockpuppet account on my talkpage? . Clearly I can't help with the retiring, but "the claim accidental creation of a sockpuppet" seems strange to me. What to do? --Slp1 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

    Quite curious, the user's only contributions have been posting a retirement notice, and then posting on your talkpage. Perhaps they forgot they had an account and didn't remember until they'd registered a new one? Lankiveil 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
    It probably requires no action. Additional accounts are allowed as long as there is no malicious intent. Accidentally creating a second account, or forgetting an earlier password and having to create a new account, or anything like that, require no admin action. In both of these cases, a user will likely only be using one of their two accounts, so there is no violation of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    No, this a sockpuppet of banned user Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) who no longer wishes to be labeled as a banned sockpuppeteer. He was on WP:AN yesterday as Forrasnyelo (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. I thought something must be going on. I wonder why he picked me.--Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Or maybe it wasn't Multiplyperfect . Oh well!!--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    SPI backlog?

    Checkuser requests flow through speedily but nobody seems to be taking care of the non-Checkuser listings at WP:SPI. There's one going back to 2 weeks ago that hasn't been touched... I posted this on the talk page over there but nobody responded. Just wondering what the normal timeframe is for sockpuppet investigations. Not complaining, just asking (and poking a bit?) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

     Doing... (X! · talk)  · @876  ·  20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Still a huge backlog and growing every day... anyone else have a moment to go over and handle some of these? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Number of non-CheckUser cases is up to 30. Any help from admins who want to clear up the more clear cases would be appreciated. MuZemike 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    We need more checkusers who are dedicated to this page. I find it depressing to process sock puppetry cases when I have to wait a long, long time to get checkuser requests fulfilled. In all but the most obvious cases, it is a bad idea to block for sock puppetry without first checking the technical evidence. Jehochman 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, the bottleneck is at the other stages of the process. Once one of my reports is approved for checkuser attention, it is nearly always run within 18 hours. It's the initial clerk processing and clearing of the reports that bogs down. The bulk of the problem seems to be in the non-checkuser area, where any admin can pitch in and help out.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Can we recruit more clerks to do the front end processing? I'm happy to help when there has been a checkuser and the result is ambiguous. Jehochman 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Patrolling admins will need this for the more obvious cases.
    That's the fast part. It's the evaluation of behavioural evidence that goes slowly, and takes time from the other activities. Unfortunately, until we stop treating checkuser as the equivalent of a strip-search we are going to be stuck doing a lot of analysis of behavioural evidence.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    As far as clerks are concerned, several new clerks have recently come onboard to help, myself included. Most of the cases have not requested CheckUser, either because the behavioral evidence is clear to the point that CheckUser is not necessary, or that the user(s) filing the SPIs are unaware about how to request CheckUser or may not exactly know if one is needed. Most of the legwork needs to be done by patrolling admins who determine if there is sufficient behavioral evidence that sockpuppetry is going on. MuZemike 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    I've spent an hour going through cases. If I thought the evidence was strong but not compelling, I placed them on the checkuser queue. There were a few that quacked very loudly, and anyone with the bit can go through, block them, and place tag the case for closing:

    —Kww(talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    All we need is one (or more if more feel like helping) admins to go through the non-checkuser cases, make the necessary blocks and set the completed cases to be archived by the bot. Three cases above are obvious and just waiting for blocks (one of them is actively socking and vandalizing even). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    Strategic Planning

    The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

    Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

    All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

    Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

    --Philippe

    (please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

    Peter Damian block length

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Block and length generally endorsed, nothing to be done that needs immediate admin action, so let's move on with life. Nja 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    From this, Peter Damian has been blocked for one month. I do not disagree with the block, merely the extent of time. I am not Peter Damian's friend, nor do I have any relationship with him beyond an overall combative and adversarial relationship in the past.

    The original ArbCom motion states: "If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator."

    We have three edits, one is harassing and two are edit warring over harassing. The others seem to be moot. His block log reveals only a 12 hour block, 24 hour blocks, and a 72 hour block for set time limit blocks. The ArbCom motion does not suggest that the block is given longer than normal blocks, but that the condition for blocking becomes less.

    As such, I would recommend that this block be shortened to a more reasonable progression of blocks. I would suggest that this block be reduced to one week or two weeks, as a month from 72 hours is a large jump. I suggest this based on the wording "appropriate period of time". I do not feel that a month block for minor edit warring and minor annoyance is suitable. I would feel more comfortable with a time limit of one week or two weeks at the very most. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    What is appropriate is directly related to the history of a user. Peter has already had all of those shorter blocks more than a few times, they did not work. This does seem like a reasonable progression. Chillum 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    BTW there were three edits: one to add the sockpuppeteer tag to FT2's page, one to add the sock tag to TBP's page, and one to create the sockpuppet category - the latter two have been deleted. Majorly talk 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    We're supposed to be preventative, not punitive. It's highly doubtful Peter will magically become the gold-hearted ideal, but I'm rather uncomfortable with throwing away the key entirely. We can easily reevaluate its effectiveness at the end of one month. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Where did anyone suggest that? –xeno 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Simply saying that I think giving time to reevaluate the block is best (either to lengthen it, which I know some people have wanted, or to shorten.) Sorry, rereading that it does come out of left field :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Chillum - if shorter blocks do not work, why is his block log not double the side? And I do not feel comfortable jumping from a 72 hour block for block evasion to a 1 month long block for minor edit warring and harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    If you insist on a linear progression, how do his indefinite blocks fit into it? Chillum 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Indefinite means without limit. Law's indef was reduced to 7 hours. The first indef was only an hour. They do not effectively add any idea to jump to a month. Also, please not the use of the term "appropriate" by ArbCom, which would acknowledge standard blocking increments. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Shockingly - agree with Ottava. The natural progression being 24,48,72,1 week,(mileage varying, 2 weeks),1 month - at least a step was skipped. –xeno 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Steps? Do we have predefined steps now? How do his indefinite blocks fit into these steps? Regardless, has the blocking admin been notified of this thread? Chillum 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Only as defined by common practice. –xeno 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think common practice is far more varied than the steps you describe. Chillum 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    It is. And in any case we're not necessarily bound by any generic informal practice. I think looking at the big picture a month is about right. RxS (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    I comment only on the overarching issue here, which is that an Admin's Guide needs to be posted to help admins in these types of things, such as standardizing progressive corrective actions (blocks) and the like so that Misplaced Pages's admin actions will look less arbitrary and more consistent and competent. Cla68 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Agree on that. Neither WP:BLOCK nor the WP:NAS have any guidance beyond "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future." –xeno 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    We don't need our progressive corrective actions standardized. Different situations call for different reactions. We can't have a predefined set of responses that will work for everyone. Chillum 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    The wording by ArbCom, "appropriate", suggests that we need to have a predefined set of responses. Appropriate means that it is correct to the situation. It is also stated as a defined necessary response to a violation. These are dictates, not loose suggestions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    "Appropriate" does not mean it has to be predefined. It simply means "don't overreact," which is something that needs judged for each block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Endorse block length. Peter has been a disruption for quite a while now. Maybe some significant time away from the project will help him reevaluate his goals. He was given a directive to stay away from FT2, and he knowingly and willfully went against that. He needs to think about if he's here to build an encyclopedia or to create drama. Hopefully, the month will prevent further disruption. Firestorm 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed. He was clearly asked to behave better and specifically chose not to. It's not that hard to get along better and those that choose not to don't need to be pampered so excessively. Some people act as if the default behavior is poor and that's ok. Instead we have an encyclopedia to write and we should direct our efforts towards that at all turns. - Taxman 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment We're running the risk of a meatball:ForestFire (fragmented discussion) as PD's conduct and resulting block are being discussed on both AN, ANI as well as WP:AE and his user talk page. In plainer english, can we pick a page and stick with it? Also, was blocking admin notified?--Tznkai (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Regarding your last question, yes the OP notified the blocking admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    Techincal note Peter damian has block logs under past accounts as well. Full block logs for main accounts are as follows. :

    Seddσn | 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    I've wondered this in the past, but is there any possibility that Peter Damian (talk · contribs) is Wiki brah (talk · contribs)? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    A buh?? Wiki brah, the barely-literate guy who acts about 15? If they're the same person, he's done a bang-up job of creating separate personalities. I can't see similarities. Friday (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Agree with Friday. I don't see Peter doing any help desk trolling, legal article editing, or off-colour comments about how high he might be at this particular time. –xeno 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    My question arises because of Wiki brah's penchant for attempting to create disruptive new policies. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Endorse block and its length. I would not object to an indef the next time. It is clearly preventative, because for the next month, Peter Damian won't be harassing anybody. Given his lengthy history, there is ample evidence that he has every intention of being disruptive as often as possible. I see no reason to object to a block of this length given his past history. --Jayron32 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I would've agreed with Xeno. However, given that the block logs on the previous accounts need to also be considered (thank you Seddon for pointing these out), given the nature of the misconduct (harassment), and the remaining issues mentioned by Jayron32, I can find no objections. Endorse block and its length. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse PD's been blocked enough on various accounts, and suggested block escalation lengths aren't always the best guide. Protonk (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse as per Ncm above. Being blocked that many times clearly indicates a problem. Dayewalker (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse and move we extend to indefinite. Peter's not been anything positive for the project lately, and there's simply no point to putting any length on blocks if all he does is come back and cause more problems post-expiration. Does anyone seriously believe any length of block will prompt contrition and reform? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Statement from blocking admin

    As the admin who pushed the block button on Peter, I'll say that I believe the length of my block is justified (perhaps too lenient), but if the community decides otherwise, then I'm fine with that. Given his history, and the fact that he has been blocked multiple times since ArbCom passed their motion concerning him back in December, it seems apparent to me that he is not willing to abide by any conditions that are set on him, and that respect for policy is not there. Short term blocks have proven to be ineffective in preventing recurrences. That much is apparent just from looking at his block log -- I didn't even know about his other accounts (as noted by Seddon above) when I made the block. So, given that, it would seem that anything short of an indefinite block would be inappropriate. However, I did notice comments from other users noting that Peter has made some good content contributions. So, given that, and a desire to create less drama than an indef block would have generated, I settled on one month, with the hopes that the situation between him and FT2 would have a chance to cool off in that time. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    I wrote this in response to Peter, but it is equally in response to you (after the beginning, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    The "creates good content" excuse is a red herring insofar as allowing disruption to go unchecked. No content created by one person cannot otherwise be created by another, with the thousands of editors here, no one is irreplaceable. However, one diruptive user can drive dozens of otherwise non-disruptive users from the project by creating an unworkable environment. So the question becomes?
    1. Do we mind losing his potential future content contributions by eventually indeffing him,
    2. Do we mind more losing the contributions from the dozens of other people he is going to drive away if he is allowed to continue this behavior unchecked.
    I will vote for #2 every day and twice on sundays. The deal is, no one is irreplacable, so it comes down to cold mathematics. His contributions cannot outweigh the damage he does in driving other users away. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he can stop acting in a way that he should know will get him blocked. But we should not consider mainspace contributions as a mitigating factor in issues like this. What of the mainspace contributions from all of the people who up and left because of people like Peter Damian? --Jayron32 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ephemeral. I agree with you Jayron, but we can't prove a damn thing, its all speculative.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Whistleblowers are disruptive. How they are dealt with says a lot about the health of the institution in which it the whistleblowing occurs. Institutions that regard whistleblowing purely as a disciplinary problem, or as a problem of people not pulling together with the team, and which make no effort to get to grips with the matter of whether the allegations made are true, are sick organisations. So I reject Jayron's either/or; there are more reasons why good editors might leave WP than being aghast at the spectacle of seeing speech-restricting injunctions flouted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    That would be great except this isn't a whistleblower situation as much as Peter Damian would like to paint it as one. While he may have had a point at times, there are ways to make good points and point out problems you see without crossing the line into utter and complete disruption. Choosing repeatedly to do the latter is what has gotten Peter into this situation. Not whistleblowing. - Taxman 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed. Whistleblowing would be a Good Thing. Being a general disruption because you disagree with other people is a Bad Thing. You can be a vocal opponent of Misplaced Pages and its power structure without being just mean and harassing. There is a huge difference between vehement, but civil, disagreement and with just being a general dirsuption. Peter Damian crossed into the latter category long ago. --Jayron32 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Will Beback (Administrator) (Moved)

    This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

    Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


    FT2  05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    i need the schools favour

    hello sir, its me osifeso ayodele oluwaseun an international student that just gained admission into your school for information technology.actually i was asked the pay some money and due to economic breakdown in nigeria presently.and it as cause some damage to our bussiness.that is the reason why my parents suggested that i should mail the school if they can allow me to pay half of the money now and after few months i will be balancing the payment.pls i will look forward towards seeing your response.thanks for your cooperation osifeso ayodele oluwaseun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayodele osifeso (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Misplaced Pages, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    Request for unblock by User talk:Macromonkey

    Resolved

    See Macromonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User was indeffed in april, and does not appear to have edited since. They have asked to be allowed to come back to the fold; I am inclined to think he's been blocked long enough; as he can always be reblocked if needed. What does everyone else say in this case. If there are sockpuppetry issues that we need to work out that I am unaware of, or if there are issues I am unaware of beyond "he deserved the block when he got it" (which he clearly did) then lets have that discussion. What does everyone think of provisionally unblocking him with the understanding that the indef block returns at the first sign of any problems? --Jayron32 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    He has indeed edited and vandalized since April using socks:
    Note that right before his current request, he had removed two notifications on his talk page. I have restored them. One of his actions was to attack me by creating a nearly identical username to mine. Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. I was unaware of these issues. It looks like he's been socking less than a month ago, given that, I am amending my comments above. I personally am now ready to decline his request based on recent sock problems, and to inform him to abstain from socking for a reasonable time (several months) if he wants to return. I will wait for a short time to see what others think, however, but given this new evidence, I think that he has not changed enough to consider that he is now willing to abide by Misplaced Pages rules. --Jayron32 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    I regret the sockpuppetry: I have no active socks anymore. I did remove the notifications, but not in a malicious way, but to make the page more clear, although I can see how this may be seen. I appreciate my request being considered, so thank you. 86.157.67.12 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Uh, why are you out here making the case? Blocked means blocked, meaning you are not supposed to be editing anywhere outside your talk page. Using another IP out here tells us that you are still using alternate accounts not only to evade blocks, but also to cause further disruption and abuse. MuZemike 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    No per Brangifer, I was going to post the same links, but Bull beat me to it. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Decline unblock - Thanks to Jayron for notifying me of the conversation. I'm afraid he exhausted our patience before, and whatever the assertions now the socking above does not give me much trust that the issues of the past will not be repeated. Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose unblock per my comment above. MuZemike 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose (even if polling is evil) - "close minded idiots, it doesnt matter if its a consensus, its just group bias", an edit summary used in March, shows the user has very little or no regard for one of our core policies. No reason to believe that he would change his ways at that rate.  GARDEN  20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input everyone. I have declined his unblock request this time, but made him aware of the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. If he is genuine about turning over a new leaf, he will wait several months before editing as instructed. We can revisit the issue at that time. I am marking this resolved. --Jayron32 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, thanks, Jayron32. However, I do not believe that nondisruptive edits, such as the one I saw on my Talk page from Macromonkey, or the IP comment above, should be considered violations of anything, and I'll be arguing this before ArbComm. Bans allow rapid block on discovery, we do it for efficiency, so that we don't have to debate the same issue over and over. Not editing per the Standard Offer is a demonstration of respect for community consensus. Note, however, that if an editor is desperate to make constructive edits outside of articles known to be of interest to Macromonkey, the likelihood of them being identified as sock edits is about zero. If, later, MacroMonkey comes back and wants to take responsibility for those edits (I'd recommend it), we would not block the editor, assuming that they were, indeed, good edits. But there is an obvious risk.
    • Further, I'm going to be arguing before ArbComm that self-reverted edits, nondisruptive in themeselves but only technical violations, are not offenses against ban policy, which exists to protect, not to punish. Even if a self-reverted edit is *wrong*, it's automatically undone and nobody need do anything about it. I'll give the arguments for this at RfAr. However, it can do nothing but improve the project and provide an open door for a banned editor to begin making constructive contributions immediately, and for the contribution to take effect, if this is in an article that was a reason for the ban, cooperation by or with editors who supported the ban may take place, hence the divisions behind the ban may start to heal. The edit summary "will self-revert per ban," per ban "of MacroMonkey" in this case, actually shows respect for the ban and trust in the community (true violating IP socks don't identify themselves so that they can be immediately blocked!). MacroMonkey should know, however, that, though myself-reversion proposal was approved by one arbitrator, previously, about another banned editor, when I later was banned and actually relied on it to make a one-character correction to a reference, I was immediately blocked and editors piled in to approve that action. So this isn't accepted yet. Soon, I hope. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    Blocking abuse filter proposal

    See WP:VPR#Blocking abuse filters?. Prodego 22:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Griffinofwales

    Resolved

    I've just blocked Griffinofwales ‎for 12 hours for carrying on a revert war at User talk:Jimbo Wales after the protection I'd put on it expired. I've just realised the time and it's far later than I thought so I'm going to have to go to bed. Could other administrators keep an eye on the situation for me and decide whether the block is good? If there's consensus against it, I've no problem with it being removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    User:Griffinofwales reverted on the basis of advice I gave, whether that advice was correct or not. I certainly have received no comments on that. Accordingly, I don't regard this as continued edit-warring, merely a misunderstanding. Given that the pubs are now well-shut in Manchester, I am not surprised, and will unblock User:Griffinofwales forthwith. If anyone feels my advice was inadequate, well, I advised on the situation as I saw it. If I misinterpreted it, you know what you can do. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Proposed creation of a new notice board

    Resolved – never mind. Triplestop x3 15:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    I would like to propose the creation of a new page, the "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Abuse". The abuse noticeboard would be for allowing users to report suspicious activity related to long term abuse (eg, long term sock abusers), and to allow users dealing with abusers to track and find reports of occurrences of such abuse. Now, AN/I, AIV, LTA and SPI are sometimes used for this, however users often don't report unless they are absolutely sure something fishy is going on, at AIV not all admins may be familiar with the situation, LTA is only used for more extreme cases, and at SPI the puppet master might not be known. This would also provide a centralized place to track such abuse as well as alerting other users for activity to be on the lookout for. Any ideas? Triplestop x3 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Why can ANI not continue to handle this like it already does? Why continue to balkanize the admin noticeboards? Having fewer locations to check in on allows more admins to monitor and respond to more situations. Unless there is some new process which would require such reports to be seperated out, I don't see why SPI (for where the sockmaster is known) and ANI (for where it is not) are not currently sufficient. --Jayron32 03:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    This is just a silly idea. ANI is for "right-this-minute" problems while AN is for more admin stuff. We don't need a third board. Oppose. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Seems like Triplestop got suplexed for asking for ideas. Calling the proposal "silly" probably wasn't very nice. Cmon, T-stop, I'll buy you a cold one. Tan | 39 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2

    A motion regarding the above user has been closed and may be viewed at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Discuss this

    Request block for some IPs and semi protection for Java (programming language) article

    An unregistered user often signing done on many of his contributions (he is often using Special:Contributions/128.206.82.56 or Special:Contributions/99.195.196.136 IPs) is spreading FUD on Java performance, and repeatedly revert other people edits in order to give his own personal view. He is obviously convinced that Java is very slow compared to C, and has started to modify this article according to his own views. He has recently edited (and already reverted) the Performance optimizations paragraph with the sentence: "however there are cases where Java is more than 30 times slower than C". The problem is that the benchmark he quote compares GNU GCC with Java with the -Xint flag, so with purely interpreted Java. When I reverted this with this explanation, he replied on the Talk page:You obviously didn't read the reference. There is also a server mode. This article reports best case scenario, there are also worst case scenarios (which he did not provide of course). As I did not want to engage in an edit war, I asked other editors assistance in the talk page. However, He began to show a very uncivil attitude. His last move was repeatedly WP:OUTING on 2 users. I won't quote his real life identities speculations here of course (it is in this discussion thread) but as I asked him to revert his speculation about these users real life identity, he refused to do so, and WP:OUTING on another user. As this very uncivil user do not use an account, I request the two regular IPs he uses to be blocked, and the article to be semi-protected. Hervegirod (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think WP:Wikiquette alerts might have been a better, less heated way to handle this.. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I consider WP:OUTING a serious offense. The outing attempt is the only reason I put it here. I talked about his general behavior to provide context for what he did. Sorry if it appeared like I asked the block for his previous POV behavior. Hervegirod (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    A user repeatedly add his own copyright tags on various articles

    See Special:Contributions/Chicarelli7. Unfortunately, his Talk page is not accessible, so it's impossible to warn him about this. He seems to have a "Special Contribution page", but no user page. Hervegirod (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    This seems to have been going on for quite some time. I have cleaned up as many as I can find, and notified the user that it should not happen again. A number of similar edits had also been made to Commons. Also see similar edits from User:Gerson75, and edits such as . Outside Misplaced Pages itself, a similar notice appears to have been added to http://libero.wikia.com/Free_Documentation_License -- I don't have a Wikia account, so I won't remove it myself, but it probably shouldn't be there either. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, I didn't know that it was possible to access the Talk page with the little Talk link at the top, even if the user page was not accessible. Hervegirod (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Without having any desire to wheel war, I'm a bit surprised that this editor wasn't blocked for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Good idea. Done. I issued the warning on that talk page prior to researching the other edits from other accounts. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    WP:BLOCK policy at odds with adminbots and allowing abuse filters to block users

    {{resolved|MZMcBride's analysis of the situation is accurate. AntiAbuseBot and ProcseeBot enjoy community consensus, the relevant policy pages should be updated to reflect the same. AF discussion is being held at another venue. –xeno 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)}}

    A proposal has been made to allow abuse filters to block users. Aside from the obvious concerns about false positives in abuse filters causing issues, as they have in the past and undoubtedly will do in the future, this is contrary to the existing WP:BLOCK policy which begins by stating "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Misplaced Pages". Although it may be argued that bots or filters with administrator rights are administrators, I do not believe that this was the intention when the policy was written.

    It has come to my attention that there are at least two approved adminbots, AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which are currently blocking users. Again, this would be contrary to my interpretation of existing policy. Both bots were "approved" after the fact as they were already running and blocking users prior to submission for approval. There may be other, unapproved adminbots also running. In the bot approval discussion for AntiAbuseBot, the approval was temporary and conditional until the abuse filters were activated. Several commentors seemed uncomfortable with the idea of bots being allowed to block users. ProcseeBot was approved with very little discussion. The rationale for the bot was the anontalk spammers and similar, issues which are now somewhat mitigated by the abuse filters.

    WP:BLOCK details considerations that should be made when blocking users, such as collateral damage, and duration of blocks as related to severity and history. Simple string-matching regex filters and bots are not obviously or inherently capable of these types of considerations. In the case of ProcseeBot, since open proxies are routinely hardblocked, this is less of an issue. I haven't checked ProcseeBot, but AntiAbuseBot fails to follow the WP:BLOCK requirement that "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked". A recent example is this block (although a later blocking admin also failed to leave a notification when they blocked the IP for "repeatedly and deliberately triggering the abuse filter").

    I believe that the cart has been put ahead of the horse by approving adminbots with little public discussion and that the cart is now dragging that horse at high speed with the proposal to allow the abuse filter to block users. I suggest that AntiAbuseBot needs to have its admin bot removed immediately (per the approval provisos) and that ProcseeBot should be stopped until either a full community discussion of unsupervised automatic blocks has been concluded, or until WP:BLOCK has been revised to include bots and ProcseeBot is confirmed to follow all parts of that policy. Any discussion of allowing the abuse filters to block users is premature until the blocking policy has been settled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Have there been any controversial blocks made by these adminbots, other than the one you liked to above? Pardon me if I'm missing an obvious, previous discussion. Tan | 39 15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would point out that that was not a bad or controversial block. The IP was quite clearly vandalizing. Mr.Z-man 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    The policy is written and continually updated to serve the project. If it states "by administrators" and a discussion elsewhere considers that administrators using abusefilter is also apppropriate at some times, then it would be blocking policy that may need to change to reflect that view. FT2  16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, I suggested revising WP:BLOCK as one of the options. I'm interested in seeing a discussion of the issue (blocking by unsupervised automated processes) prior to any update. The policy should reflect the desire of the community, rather than current practice by a limited number of admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Tan, I don't think the diff I linked is an example of a controversial block, simply of one that does not follow policy. I assume it is typical. My reason for bringing up this issue is not to criticize the actions of these adminbots, simply to point out that there is a discrepancy between policy and practice which may be further extended by allowing abuse filters to block users. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any general community agreement to extend administrator privileges to non-humans. My feeling is that only humans should be able to block users, but I am not fixed in that belief, and I do not wish to presume the outcome of a community discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    At least up to a point (AI?), bots run by admins can be considered mere tools for the job. The real question I think is do we trust the tools to work, and is it worth the cost (false positives, plus design/maintenance). Even planes crash (very rarely), and people still fly - and blocks can be undone. Rd232 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this needs to be a fairly wide discussion by all users, not just admins. Can we agree on the basics - that WP:BLOCK and current practice are divergent, that a community-wide discussion about blocking by automated processes is needed, and that adminbots need to be stopped until the discussion has taken place? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Off-hand, it would appear this thread is purely about semantics. That is, it's about the specific wording used in a particular policy page. If so, I'd urge all involved to remember that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. And that the pages have an edit tab for a reason. If the inclusion of adminbots doesn't seem to fall within the current wording used, the policy talk page is the appropriate forum. I don't see any particularly pressing issues to address, though. Am I missing anything? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Shouldn't policy be descriptive of the desire of the community, rather than the very small group of admins who participated in the bot approval discussions (to "approve" bots which were already running and blocking users)? At the very least, before this thread gets closed, AntiAbuseBot should have its admin bit removed as per the bot approval. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why? Those two bots have been running for six months; ProcseeBot has around 52,000 blocks in that time. What is the pressing issue to disable them? Kuru 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    AntiAbuseBot was approved conditionally and temporarily. Since the abuse filters have been implemented, the bot is presumably no longer required. Read the approval discussion - I don't think it would have been approved if the abuse filters implementation was not imminent. With any piece of running software, there is a chance of malfunction. Why leave a bot with admin rights running if it is no longer needed, regardless of its history? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    You appear to be mistaken about the abuse filter. It was not designed as the be-all, end-all, solution to vandalism. In fact, filters that can be easily managed by a bot are encouraged to be disabled to reduce the overall load of the AF. –xeno 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oh. This is an anti-adminbots rant? Gotcha. I'll pass. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Not at all. If the community wants adminbots they will have adminbots, but I don't think anyone asked the community what they wanted. Would you not agree that if there are adminbots they should follow the blocking policy? I've provided a diff to show where a bot failed to notify a user that they were blocked. I'm not sure why you feel that the conditions set forth in AntiAbuseBot's approval should be ignored, regardless of how you assume I feel about admin bots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Was the block incorrect? Administrators do not always notify users that they are blocked. Sometimes, I'll go completely rogue and block a user, no talk page or email privileges. I won't leave a block notice. Was I wrong? Of course not, the user had just moved five pages abusively. They knew what they were doing, and don't need notification that they can't anymore.
    I am have my reservations about adminbots; in fact if memory serves me right, I was the one who suggested AAB automatically place unblock templates for human review. Show me something the bot did wrong. –xeno 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    See the diff already provided. No block notice or unblock template were left for the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I wanted to see something the bot did wrong. That seems like a perfectly appropriate block. –xeno 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Operators of adminbots are required to widely distribute word of their BRFA. Community objections are invited. Next time you unresolve your own thread, please use "{{tlx}}", "nowiki" or some other manner of keeping the closing administrators' comments on the page. As you already stated yourself, adminbots are technically administrators (c.f. , ), so the policy remains accurate. –xeno 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would have no problem with a discussion to make more clear the extent that automation is allowed for blocking, but proposing a bot that provides an important service with no actual problems, besides it not being consistent with one interpretation of the specific wording of a policy, be shut down until that's done is just policy wonkery. The somewhat non-descriptive block summaries of AntiAbuseBot are arguably an issue, but suggesting it be desysopped and shut down without even asking the operator to change the summary (which would likely be a trivial change) is not helpful. Mr.Z-man 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    WP:BLOCK calles for notifications to be left on the user's talk page, not in the edit summary (See this section) but that's not why I'm calling for the desysopping. Here, in full, is the approval statement for AntiAbuseBot: "Approved. until such time as the AbuseFilter extension or a substantially indentical technical feature is turned on by the sysadmins at the English Misplaced Pages. At such a time, a report should be made to the bot owners' noticeboard requesting that Chris G either to turn off the bot or seek re-approval in a Misplaced Pages:BRFA". I'm not picking on AntiABuseBot, but I don't see the need for it anymore, given that abuse filters now exist. My fundamental point here is that there needs to be a wider discussion of automated blocking. Please understand that I don't think the existing practice represents the wishes of the community, although I may be completely wrong about that. Simply rewording WP:BLOCK won't change that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Until blocking abuse filters are implemented, AntiAbuseBot is needed. And even afterwards, the code that Chris G can write with his bot is far superior to what features and functions are available with the abuse filter. If you think that adminbots are a bad thing, try cleaning up after vandals like Grawp without them. When you do that for a few weeks, then start complaining. J.delanoyadds 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I apologise if my suggestion that more community input is required comes across as a complaint. I have not at any point said that I think adminbots are a bad thing. Taking a look through AntiAbuseBot's blocking log for today, it looks like simply semi-protecting NawlinWiki's archives would have prevented the need for any action by the bot. And even failing that, ClueBot would have handled it. I'm not trying to argue with you about the utility of the bot, it is simply an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    What I am saying is, I remember there being a very long and detailed community discussion about adminbots. There is no need to have "further community input"; the community has already given their opinion on the matter. The consensus was that adminbots would be allowed. If you have a problem with adminbots, start an RFC outlining why they should not be allowed. J.delanoyadds 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    WP:RFC/ZOMGADMINBOTS. Quite a few people from The Community™ commented there, for what it's worth. I think a broader discussion about the impact of new users being illegitimately stopped by the AbuseFilter is more important than another discussion about adminbots, but, hey, I'm just a random guy from the Internet. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for that link. There seems to be quite a range of opinions. Note that I am solely raising concerns to do with automated blocking, not with other routine activities carried out by adminbots or filters. I agree with your comment about more discussion for filter actions, however. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Reboot

    I'm having trouble understanding the hostile reaction to a proposal which in essence says "let's ask regular editors if they want automated processes to block users". I should not have included the information about specific adminbots, since it seems to have drawn all of the focus. If future commenters could place any adminbot-related comments above this section it may help to maintain focus on the basic question in this new section. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    We already did all this, very calmly, and slowly, when we finally (as a community) allowed adminbots to come out into the open. Before, they were run as open secrets (many still are). If you want to initiate an RFC, by all means, but we're not going to turn the switches off because one user didn't notice the process. AntiAbuseBot's approval had much community input. If you want AntiAbuseBot to undergo a re-certification BRFA because the abuse filter hasn't solved all our problems yet, drop a note on his operators' talk page. –xeno 19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Which I've done)
    Because that's not your entire proposal. The other half of your proposal is to shut down 2 bots providing valuable services despite them having no significant issues (one of them having no issues at all). Mr.Z-man 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Since it seems to be such a distraction, I have struck out those comments. Any thoughts on the rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Carbuncle, I appreciate (and in some cases, share) your apprehension for adminbots. However, these two adminbots are doing an admirable job. I simply don't see that the "community" is objecting to their operation. Comments as to their operation was invited before they were approved. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Current adminbot BRFAs, for example. –xeno 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Question about un-block requests

    There is no unblock request to be heard. –xeno 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I read about un-block requests. These are usually decided by one person. But this is a very important issue so there should be Misplaced Pages-wide administrator discussion so we don't get Misplaced Pages into hot water.

    See the http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts

    Then see this Amisquitta apparently represented Anthony Misquitta of Farrer & Co, who did in fact co-write the legal notice I received. I don't think it's wise to get involved as an administrator in matters related to the NPG, but neither would I object to an unblock. Dcoetzee 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    An administrator already got involved and blocked User:Amisquitta. This looks like retaliation by Misplaced Pages.

    Because this is an unusual case, shouldn't Amisquitta be unblocked? If Amisquitta begins to edit badly or threatens, he can be reblocked.

    Don't shoot the messenger. I am just reporting something that I saw (a block) Acme Plumbing (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    To avoid confusing any pending legal matters, I oppose unblock. The above comment, attributed to Dcoetzee, appears to have been copied here from the latter's enwiki talk page: User talk:Dcoetzee#National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. The admin who placed the block on 10 July was User:Georgewilliamherbert. The immediate reason for the block appears to be the use of the Misplaced Pages email system to forward a legal notice to Dcoetzee. Reference above to 'unblock request' might be confusing because Amisquitta has not himself requested unblock. The notice at User talk:Amisquitta by GWH asks that Amisquitta contact Mike Godwin for any further discussion. It is reasonable that Mr. Misquitta and Mike Godwin must have a direct channel available for them to communicate on, so the urgency of undoing this block is not clear. If Mike G. were to advise undoing the block, then it should obviously be undone. For normal legal threats, under WP:NLT the block is kept in place while the case is pending:

    If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

    This appears sensible, so that statements made through on-wiki interaction don't get added to the court case, if one were to be filed. No disapproval of Mr. Misquitta personally is implied by this stance, since he may have felt it was a necessary step in his case to try to use Misplaced Pages email to notify the person whose actions he is questioning. (He may have had no other means of reaching him). EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see that the user has requested unblocking. –xeno 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the summary, Ed. As there is no unblock request to be heard, I am archiving this thread. –xeno 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Not here to build an encyclopedia

    I've had a go at drafting this page. The expression itself is often used and referenced in communal discussions, and a page on it seems long overdue.

    Eyeballs and improvements?

    Thanks.

    FT2  16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Is it an essay, proposed guideline/policy? –xeno 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    How about a userbox? {{user-encyclopedia|-1}} This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and wishes more Wikipedians had secret pages to discover. Badger Drink (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Are you sure that this page helps building an encyclopedia? I think it would be better to cut down WP:NOT to readable length instead of adding even more pages that people point at using alphabet soup but nobody reads. Kusma (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    The phrase is used often enough that providing some insight on what people are talking about is worthwhile. Not sure if it can exactly fit right into policy/guideline form though. It covers a lot of area. –xeno 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    User:TTN

    I have just speedily closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination). I want to flag the situation up since the article was nominated one day after a deletion debate had been closed as 'No consensus regarding the same article. The article had been nominated both times by TTN (talk · contribs), who has formerly been involved in arbitration cases, namely Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. TTN makes pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate, but I do find myself concerned give the user's past history. I offer up both my close of the debate and the swift renomination for review and comment, given my concern and also the possibility that such concern has biased me. Hiding T 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Westchester Tornado of July 2006

    Resolved

    Article history and article talk history has been lost in some page moves. Could the historical edits be moved to the new page locations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see any orphaned revisions floating about - could you be more specific about what and where the problem is? Hersfold 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    It seems to me that the talk page should have a lot of history before the page move. There should be DYK award diffs, GA nom, GA pass, FA nom and FA pass diffs on the talk page. The article history now seems complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Everything is there as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton |  22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    What am I seing here and here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    Page move, and subsequent redirect fixes. Nothing related to the revision history of the article itself. –Juliancolton |  22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    File:Jacquesderrida.jpg

    Hi, I'm a sysop from the German Wikiversity. An user at our project used the picture File:Jacquesderrida.jpg. We don't believe, that this file was releaesed with a proper free license. We would advise you to use this file in the future with the fair use-licence. Yours Michael from Germany. --Michael Reschke (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    1. {{cite web |url=http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=javaxint&box=1 |title=The Computer Language Benchmarks Game
    Category: