Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Its chief purpose is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Non-administrators are free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message!

To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User Talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page. This last point is particularly important, as it makes this page easier for admins to watch; more admins will watch/monitor this page if the volume of postings is smaller.

Related pages:

• Meta-discussions about the board (what it's for, how to publicize it, etc) at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's_noticeboard

Tasks

Blocking bug

Due to a somewhat critical bug in MediaWiki 1.4, no blocks are expiring at or after their given date and time of expiry - a block is only lifted if the user/IP is manually unblocked. I did a lot of unblocking this morning, but until the bug is fixed, if anybody has a few free minutes, I suggest periodically browsing through Special:Ipblocklist and unblocking the users whose blocks have expired. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 17:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, another bug causes the expiry time for "indefinite" or "infinite" blocks to be given as the current date and time, so don't unblock those. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 19:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done a few more this evening. I hope the bug get's fixed soon. In the meantime adims should probably try to go easy on using blocks in the first place, at least until the bug is fixed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; not only do I now know about the bug, but now I know about this fantabulous noticeboard. :) --Golbez 09:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This might have something to do with the fact that in the block log shows the block reason in the place of the block length (172 blocked "User:165.247.204.19" with an expiry time of (plagiarism and revert warring)). --fvw* 14:02, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

These bugs in unison are unfortunate, any ETA on them getting fixed? I may have accidentally unblocked some IPs that were meant to be permanent; hopefully they'll persist in their behavior so that they can be spotted easily again. I promise to be more careful. --—Ben Brockert (42) 04:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

To whoever ends up archiving all these discussions: please leave this one on the page as a reminder until the bug gets fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD backlog

Could someone please look into this? Vacuum c 01:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

General

Double-blocking

What do you guys do to avoid blocking an already blocked IP? Do you check the log or what? I'd like to see a note on someone's user page if they're blocked, so I know I don't have to bother checking. Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I usually check the IP block list, but that's a bit of a pain. A warning + confirmation that the IP/user is already blocked would be pretty helpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I leave a message on the IP's talk page so that other admins following up don't have to waste the time checking. Still, since not everyone does that, the only way to be sure is to check the IP block list before blocking. SWAdair | Talk 03:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a new feature for MediaWiki could be an automatic symbol for blocked users. It could show up next to their name/IP in recent changes and have a sign on their user/talk pages that isn't part of the article (and thus not removable). violet/riga (t) 17:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like such a feature very much. It saves vandal hunters so much time. Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

That would be a nice feature, but at present, I don't worry myself over double-blocking. They were blocked for a reason. How many cases of reformed vandals do we have? --Golbez 10:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

IP addresses and sock puppets

CWS, Netoholic, Viriditas and TBSDY (myself) have all been in discussion about the whole sockpuppet to IP address issue. Personally, I've noticed suspicious edits on articles by anons where users have been blocked for 24 hours. Some sort of verification of the user's past IP addresses and matching them to the user might be helpful. Except that auto-blocking comes in useful here... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask somebody this, and I figure you may know: is there any way for an admin to view the last active IP of a non-anon user? Many thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 23:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, only a system administrator (Tim Starling comes to mind) can find that out. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CWS, why do you need to know? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reading recent accusations of sockpupperty and watching recent vandals rotating usernames, it seemed to me that the ability to cross-reference IP addresses would render the former moot, and the latter somewhat easier to deal with. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tell me about it. I said the same to Viriditas! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you think its worth it for us to propose that administrators get the ability to see the source IP address of an edit, in addition to the author? I can't think of any major security issues, especially if it's only admin that can see them. -- ClockworkSoul 22:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely! That would solve many sock-puppet issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to write survey, or shall I? :) -- ClockworkSoul 22:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such a proposal will not currently solve any sock-puppet issues if the users in question are editing from a secure browser (java disabled) and using an anon proxy. IIRC (and I could be mistaken), the only way to solve this problem is to ban open proxies. Many IRC servers have implemented this solution, but I believe there are ways around it, depending on the type of proxy. --Viriditas 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't entirely eliminate sockpuppetry, but it would cut it down somewhat, and would make the lives of us vandal-hunters somewhat easier. It's also a bonus that the software could support such a change with a near-trivial amount of effort. I agree that your proposal, Viriditas, would go alot farther, but is also a grander undertaking. -- ClockworkSoul 23:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If people with a free mail service need to contact an admin to sign up, it's likely they won't go through the effort causing us to lose valuable editors. I'd like to see some better vandal and trouble user logging, perhaps added to their user page so vandal hunters can easily check an IP's or user's past. Mandatory sign up isn't a problem, as long as we don't make verification neccesary. Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Question: Why do you need to spy on users through the IP addresses? Contributions should be judged on what they are, not who wrote them. Sock puppets are annoying, yes, but there's nothing that can be done about them without massive changes to Wikipedia (for ex., requiring proof of identification before one could create an account, and blocking anon. users) that wouldn't be popular. I'm against the Big Brother type activity. If someone's contributions are so one-sided that he's an obvious sock puppet, then delete/demote them on POV grounds rather than surmised identity. EventHorizon 05:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welllll'... normally I would have agreed with you on this one. But lately we've been blocking for violation of the 3RR. We've been seeing many similar edits on the articles we've blocked for, and the first thing a lot of admins thinks is that those edits come from blocked editors. So it would clear up a lot of issues if we could see the IP addresses used of editors. Mind you, from what I understand its a bit of a moot point because the autoblock automatically blocks those IP addresses anyway... Ta bu shi da yu 20:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even though seeing an editors IP may seem trivial (considering developer people can do it no problem), I fear that the seeing a editors IP would be a power abused by admins. It is always nice to know something other people don't, eh? Considering that admins have been abusing blocking policy regarding 3RR (a policy DISASTER), not a good idea to give them more "responsibility". A temptation to much to resist. Sock puppets are not illegal per se. Abusing them to circumvent policy is.

The only way I could support admins seeing an editors IP would be if 3 lay (non-admin) editors, approved that course of action beforehand. As has been stated, admins have more responsibility but authority lies with the wikipedia community. I do not trust admins, sorry.

It does seem to be a moot point, considering the autoblock. Seeing a "rogue editors" IP, which can be changed easily, will solve very, very little. Wikipedia has not been damaged by admins inability to see an editors IP. Mrfixter 23:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair enough these are your views. However, where have admins violated the 3RR? Also, why do you think we have to block because of repeated violations? Well, because the point is that people are reverting and not even bothering to discuss their changes. Then when we block because of it they get all pissed off. Well, I say tough. If they had been making edits in good faith they would have taken their comments to talk to work on. And they would have tried to gain consensus. Reverting in the manner they do is bullying, plain and simple. Why? Because they are trying to impose their own POV on people. Take for instance CheeseDreams. She reverted and lost at least three changes on Cultural and historical background of Jesus [1] and along with other editors has forced the protection of that page. Do you think that is fair? I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where have admins violated the 3RR blocking policy? HistoryBuffErs 4 reverts in 26 hours block, Alberunis 4 reverts in 24 hours 5 minutes, Nasrallahs block after two reverts in 24 hours, Sam Spades blocking. The 3RR policy should be followed to the letter by the admins. Now, without getting off topic, I would characterise the practices of these editors as very far outside of what I would consider civil behavior. But policy should be applied evenly and justly, which the admins have failed to do. I don't think admitting that is a radical stance to take.

3RR blocking policy has also meant more sockpuppet, anon ip reverts, and has slowed down revert wars but has not ended them. Was that the point of 3RR blocking policy? Like other things in wikipedia, the long-term solution lies within the wikipedia community, not in extending admins executive power.

The wikipedia community has not given admins discretion in enforcing 3RR. 3RR must be enforced, not the individual admins interpretation of 3RR, if an admin is serious about their duty. Mrfixter 17:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but users who deliberately go out of their way to push their POV into an article may find themselves blocked. Those users need to learn how to play nice. Do you think I like blocking regular editors? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In practice admins do have discretion and are requred to exercise it fairly. They're not robots. HistoryBuffer and Alberuni's cases, if they're as you describe them, were abuse. Whether they stuck to the letter of the 3RR or not is irrelevant, if they intentionally tested its boundaries so blatantly. No editor needs to revert an article over a disagreement with another editor more than once in a blue moon, and we always have the option of modifying instead of reverting where it is appropriate to do so. The 3RR is so absurdly generous as to encourage revert warring, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits should be judged for what they are, not by who made them. But the concept of voting, and the 3RR, are undermined by sockpuppets. E.g., votes for deletion are a regular target of sockpuppet attacks. Take RFA into account, and they become a direct threat to the project. Recording IPs is not spying. Come on. Every website you visit has your IP, and they can do with it what they like. WP accounts are a gratuitous way to hide your IP, but I don't see any inherent users' right to this service. dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A strategy for identifying and blocking vandals

Discretion and skill are needed in interpreting the IP numbers with a view to sock identification. I'm currently suffering intermittently from an IP block that was applied to my ISP's http proxy legitimately because of a vandal who is sharing the same proxy. There's nothing much we can do about that; it doesn't render editing impossible (but this is also true for the vandal).

One way to move forward may be to permit editing only by logged-in users. This would mean that a vandal can be blocked by username. Vandals attempt would get around the block by storing up usernames prior to vandalism and switching to an unblocked username when required. However this strategy could be defeated by recording the IP number under which each username is registered and then raising an auto listing (on some Special page) of users performing recent edits using the same IP number as banned users. This would provide a watchlist of candidates to watch for further vandalism.

It would also mean that crude and often ineffective bans on IP numbers, such as the one I'm suffering, would not be necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Banning all anons is anti-wiki and frankly extremely infuriating to editors who don't want to register and subsequently log in all the time. But, I think that admins ought to have the developer power of viewing IPs. Unlike what Event Horizon said, this isn't a "big brother" tactic - Wikipedia is not a government or a public place, it's run by Jimmy Wales and the Foundation and so on, and the owners of websites can view the IPs of their visitors anyway. In Wikipedia's case, developers already have that power as well. The only difference here is giving that status to appointed admins. Andre (talk) 06:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have an account but I accept cookies from Wikipedia and have my preferences set to login automatically. I would accept a policy that might not appeal to wiki-purists if it meant that I did not occasionally find myself locked out of Wikipedia because of something somebody else did using the same web proxy I use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about this for some while now, and though I personally don't see the harm I do think publishing everyone's IP (even just to admins) would be a bad idea. I propose that instead we publish a hash of the both each editor's entire IP, and just the first 20 bits of their IP. To prevent brute-forcing, it would have to be the hash of those values concatenated with some secret key. That way, anyone can verifiy whether two users are using the same IP and whether they're using the same ISP, but noone can retrieve their actual IP, and their ISP can only be revealed by someone using the same ISP. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, the only drawback would be that we couldn't distinguish an IP from a named user with that IP. This could be resolved by not using the User:IP name anymore but User:<hash of ip>; That would lose us the ability to see the address of anon's though, which I rather wouldn't. --fvw* 19:15, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

good idea, although I imagine this would take some time to implement? dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the larger part of the time between it being accepted and actually happening would be waiting for the next update of mediawiki to be install on Enwiki. This is yet another of my I'll-code-it-so-it-actually-happens-some-time-soon-I-wanted-to-play-with-mediawiki-anyway idea's, the only thing is I'd like to make sure it will actually be used up front. Would this require a policy vote or something or should it just sneakily be coded and should the devels then be bribed to turn it on? --fvw* 20:06, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Three revert rule

I ask here because I think it may be the best way of getting a quick feel for the consensus on a recent change. Recently the three revert rule was made enforceable. Now the case of a simple revert is easy to identify and most edits which are termed "reverts" fall into this category: a diff between two different versions of the text of a page or section shows that they are identical, with all intermediate changes reverted.

More recently I have noticed users deleting the added text of other users selectively. This is slightly more difficult to recognise because a diff between two versions isn't identical. What shows up however is that if two versions are compared, added text in intermediate changes is selectively deleted. So for instance in one example the first user made a cosmetic edit, correcting the spelling of a single word, and a second user made a more substantial edit in which text was added. A third user then came along and performed an edit to delete all of the added text of the second user while retaining the cosmetic edit of the first, and also tweaked the heading of a section. The effect was to remove the added text of the second user.

This becomes a question because the third user had very shortly before performed two reverts on the same page, and the third edit could be seen as an attempt to evade the three revert rule.

I'd like to open the question up. Is this kind of edit covered by existing policy or practise? Does it qualify in this case as a third revert? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that a revert which includes minor changes (such as spelling changes and capitalisation) is still a revert. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent revert wars, and clearly spelling changes don't make much difference to most such wars. I think a warning might be a sufficient rebuff for a first offence.-gadfium (talk) 03:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. The advantage of having people decide rather than machines is we can see through attempts to works the system. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear in the discussion at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement that reverts that also make other changes should count for the purposes of the three-revert rule. For example, see my vote on that page. It shouldn't matter whether the other changes mixed in with a revert are major or minor, it's still a revert. However, I have just checked back at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Spirit vs. letter of the 3RR and Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Mixing reverts and significant edit, and things no longer seem as clear as I had remembered. I would support a clarification to the 3RR saying that a revert mixed with other changes is still a revert. —AlanBarrett 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a revert mixed with changes is still a revert; if someone wants to make unrelated changes, they can certainly do so in a separate edit. And indeed, if someone were to do the revert change, and then make other unrelated changes, they would definitely be blocked under the 3RR. Most admins I have seen have been interpreting revert+edits as a revert. Jayjg 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "unrelated" changes, because those are just cosmetic and an attempt to get around the rule. Substantive and/or responsive changes whether contiguous with the disputed text or not, as is appropriate to the article and issues involved, should not count as a revert. I propose also, that in the interest of community, mere deletion reverts be treated more critically, since unless the additions were vandalism, the assumption should be they are good faith contributions.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Users have used this exact excuse to get around the rule before; on the fourth revert, re-inserting a disputed paragraph, while making substantial edits to other sections. If they want to make their substantial edits to the other sections in good faith, they can certainly make them in a separate edit. Re-insertion of disputed text along with other major edits is bad faith. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a related and substantive change, as in the case I have in mind, it wouldn't make sense to make the other major edit separately from the insertion, they would be somehow supportive of each other or make a connection that is responsive to stated objections, the opposite of bad faith.--Silverback 05:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's crystal clear to me that if we don't consider a "reversion+edits" as a reversion, to count toward the 3RR, we might as well ditch the 3RR rule - because otherwise everyone will make an edit as well, every time they do a revert, and will thereby avoid ever triggering the 3RR. Noel (talk) 04:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have raised this issue (that unless a revert+edit counts as a revert, the 3RR is a dead letter) at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule#Edits and reversions; comment there would be welcome. Noel (talk) 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It will take judgement. Substantive and/or responsive changes (responsive to edit summary or talk page points). Minor changes, such as adding a wikilink that addresses issues raised can be substantive and responsive.--Silverback 04:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In most cases I've seen, it's just an attempt to get around the 3RR. I suppose it's possible in some cases that it's not, and admins should always attempt to exercise good judgement in all situations, of course. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On another note, we need a specific place to report 3RR violations (e.g. not on the talk pages of large numbers of individual sysops). If there were a particular page (Wikipedia:Excessive reversions in progress? Wikipedia:3RR violations?) then people could discuss (quickly) which users did or didn't violate the 3RR. Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where to report three revert rule violations

What is the best way to alert administrators to 3 revert rule violations? Now that blocking is policy, should they be brought here so admins can deal with them? Jayjg 01:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think so. Offenders often feel that the opposing side cherry-picks admins sympathetic to their cause. Violations are typically obvious enough that any admin should be able to block infringing parties, and posting them here would unify any revert-count disputes in one place without having them sprawl across user pages. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good for now. If it picks up to be too much traffic here, we can move it to a separate page. Noel (talk) 07:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this where we report 3RR violations now? I tried to find a proper place for it (not wanting to block somebody over a dispute I am myself involved in). I ended up putting a note on WP:RFP (please see there). dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe so; this place seems more appropriate IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFP probably isn't a good place, for several reasons. First, if a user violates the 3RR, the solution is to block them temporarily (repeated violations should be taken to ArbComm, who may ban them). Second, my sense is that policy was not to protect pages because of edit wars unless there's a really heated edit war among many parties, and two people warring doesn't meet that standard (and see the first point). Noel (talk) 18:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no, you are quite right. I think we will need a special page where people can request such blocks (this page doesn't seem an obvious choice) dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In line with User:Charm's point at WT:AN#Are people finding this useful? (which also resulted in the recent addition to header of this page), this sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Please propose a location for 3RR violation reports! Noel (talk) 16:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet template

To be used in cases beyond reasonable doubt: Template:sockpuppet

Example usage: {{sockpuppet|user=Alberuni}} - David Gerard 20:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletes marked as VFD

I've run across a few cases on RC patrol where a speedy delete has had the vfd tag added to it (but no VFD enetry yet created). Currently I'm leaving them but unless solves it's problems soon this may not be a good idea in the long run (it also gives a way to get an article on wikipedia for onee week). What do other people do? Geni 21:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd notify the person adding the tags that some articles do not require a vote before their deletion, and point them to WP:CSD. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

3RR violation at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

User:Neutrality has broken the three revert rule on this page as follows:

• 21:02, 2004 Dec 29 [2]
• 17:02, 2004 Dec 30 [3]
• 19:57, 2004 Dec 30 [4]
• 20:24, 2004 Dec 30 [5]

The first link shows his edit, the second shows the result... that he reverted by completely undoing my edit back to a previous version each time. At one point during the day, he even protected it to prevent edits he disagreed with. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that you both be blocked? My own feeling is to let this one slide... -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't violate the policy, and no, this should not slide. Admins (and arbitrators-elect) should set a better example of behavior, and also be subject to the same penalties as everyone else when they violate them. -- Netoholic @ 23:00, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

This is a project page edit, not an article edit. You were trying to add new proposals to it in mid-stream and postpone the vote unilaterally, as per the history. Reversion of such a move strikes me as entirely sensible. Reading WP:3RR, it says 'pages', not 'articles' ... I put a note on Neutrality's talk page asking for comment before acting on this myself - David Gerard 17:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Arbtitrators should not participate in revert wars because, as Netoholic says, Arbitrators are meant to set a better example of behaviour. Bearing in mind the responsibilities of his new position, Neutrality's second revert - assuming there was not already a revert war on that page - was one revert too many. jguk 17:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 3RR obviously applies to articles. It was never intended to prevent the type of reversions that I did on the project page. It was a very sensible revert. Netoholic cannot be allowed to unilaterally add proposals and postpone votes against the express wishes of the author. He is free to try to create policy in a more reasonable way. This was not a revert war. There is no moral equivalency. This was Netoholic being highly disruptive. Neutrality^talk 17:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but I posted about this additional proposal on the talk page back on Dec 19. No objections were raised at all, so I added it with no disruptive intent. When it became clear that some people objected, I proposed postponing the start of the vote, per Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. At no time did I do anything so "disruptive" as to warrant your actions. Other proposals have been added to the vote page without such diligence, but I suppose those aren't "disruptive" because you agree with them. You've behaved reprehensibly. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Neutrality also thought it would be a good idea to edit the 3RR page, changing "page" to "article", in a breathtakingly cynical act of attempted policy manipulation 1. This was not done in good faith. Neutrality broke the 3RR. The double standards applied by other admins does not inspire confidence. I have yet to hear a reason why Neutrality is immune from the 3RR. Can I get some immunity as well? --Mrfixter 19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I tried to communicate this same problem, but my comments were deleted from his talk page as "idiotic". -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Methinks Mrfixter and you are very close, if you know what I mean. Neutrality^talk 07:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Could it instead perhaps be that more than one person recognizes that you've been making poor choices? If you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, I invite you to talk to the developers and confirm that, or you should STFU about it and instead listen to these complaints. I have never seen a need for a sock puppet, and certainly wouldn't do it now on this page, since I clearly am not afraid to bring up these concerns. -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Wow Neutrality, nice red herring. Innuendo about sockpuppetry does not provide you with any cover. Reply to the accusations. Btw, Netoholic is not my sockpuppet, nor I his, not that makes any difference to you breaking the 3RR and then trying to manipulate policy. --Mrfixter 13:21, 3 Jan 2005

Copyvio problem

I'm not sure how to proceed on this one (and I'm about to be offline for 20 hours or so). While copy-editing recent extensive additions by Jugoslaven in Spanish Civil War, I found myself first noticing that he/she (I'll presume "he") was adding minute detail, then wondering where he was getting his material. (See Talk:Spanish_Civil_War#Detailed_chronology) As you can see from the exchange, I now think he took a lot of this from [6]. I am not sure what to do with this extensive addition of apparently copyrighted material to an existing, rather good article.

I've also worked out that nearly all of his other contributions are probable copyvios; I've reported those in the usual manner. I can see from his user talk page and from an exchange on User talk:Everyking that I am not the first to bring this up with him. I am not sure what to do in approaching a user who has already been warned about plagiarism and persists. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This request for assistance has now been here over 24 hours and no one has responded. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I believe, despite its not being explicitly mentioned in the blocking policy, that repeated copyvio despite warnings qualifies as vandalism and merits blocking. As for editing an existing article with plagiarized material, just revert it. According to WP:CP, it technically can be removed from the page history, but only if the copyright holder specifically requests it. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So you think that rather than try to work with him at all, or even say anything, I should just block him? That seems premature to me. I was more looking for advice on how one might approach him.

Also, it would take a lot of work to demonstrate that all of what he did in Spanish Civil War was copyright violation -- it's not all from one page, but it seems to be all from one site -- though I guess it may be a matter of better safe than sorry. I'll do this.

In any case, I'm glad to hear that we don't have to worry about it being in the history unless requested to remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's a quite obvious copyvio, even if it is from several external pages. Talk to him, and if he insists on adding verbatim (or only minimally rephrased) copies of external content, block him for repeated copyright violations. Also try asking the owner of the external site for permission—their material seems to be good. Lupo 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, I've been following up with him (see his talk page and mine) and he seems to half get it. He claims to have permission for what he added at Spanish Civil War; I told him I wanted to confirm that, since he clearly did not have permission for some of what he added elsewhere; I let him know I was writing to the relevant site to confirm; he reinserted a bunch of this at Spanish Civil War while I'm still waiting to hear from the site in question. I don't really want to ban him -- I think he is well-intentioned but confused -- but it seems that a lot of what I'm saying is going right past him. Can someone else weigh in? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Life is short, and there are (as you note in your essay) large areas of knowledge we cover poorly that we really need to work on. Dealing with people who won't wise up counts (for me) as time lost. If they don't start listening (give them a blunt warning so they really should get the message), block them. Noel (talk) 05:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat my advice from above: send an e-mail to the owner of the material on the external site and ask for their permission! If they agree, fine, if not, block the offender. Lupo 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bot issue

In my opinion the bot CanisRufus has gone a bit far afield. A quick check of the talk page seems to indicate that I'm not the only one. I would appreciate it if some of you would review the UserContributions and see if you feel the edits appropriate. Note that our standards for bots are higher than normal contributors. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 10:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the redirects, such as Mammalia and bacteria seems pointless at best. -- Walt Pohl 08:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Chuck F violates 3RR

Chuck F, chronic problem user of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F fame, has just violated the 3RR on Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. (Note that his first edit was a revert, for a total of four. RadicalSubversiv E 07:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

Someone's removing critical bits from Scientology, but has refused to give justifications for deletions, even after being asked to do so on their talk page. I've used up my reverts and am going away in a bit, could someone keep an eye on it? --fvw* 07:53, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

On it. One appears to be a home cable connection (blocked), one appears to be a dialup in .cz. User:ChrisO and User:Modemac also try to keep Scientology-related things sane - David Gerard 19:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

reads "Scientology-related things sane" and mutters something about "contradiction in terms" ;-P Vamp:Willow 21:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"A steady flow of flying saucers is still dropping off more entheta beings." - David Gerard 00:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I bought one of his books a few years ago. Was lucky enough to choose one from the science-fiction shelves, not the self-help shelves. Pakaran 06:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!!

We need quick relief on Talk:Soviet Union. If all that one user said until now about other users and particularly about me is not the subject of Wikipedia sanctions, then we have a big problem. This user has already caused the resignation of longtime valued contributor, User:Evercat, after provoking him on IRC. More resignations will follow unless action is taken. The abuse has been substantial enough to warrant a non-Arbcom block for personal attacks and trolling. 172 10:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Note also that Libertas has been warned repeatedly about this behavior on his talk page, and on Talk:Soviet Union by myself and others. RadicalSubversiv E 10:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172 has aggressively and successfully asserted control over the Soviet Union article, supported by someone of self-identified similar political views RadicalSubversiv. I have been careful not to revert him, but to politely suggest well sourced edits to make the article neutral.

His request for others to do what he wishes to do and block me must be seen in the context of his previous conduct, which goes back a long time, where he has threatened other users, used profanity, distorted sources and in some cases just plain lied.

I have engaged in the Talk process as I thought appropriate. The Soviet Union article itself is protected. Now he wishes to assert control over the contents of the Talk page.

He has requested no fewer than a dozen times for users to block and ban me, in concert with left leaning associates like RadicalSubversiv. They have accused me of not being a real user, of being linked with discredited users I've never interacted with or hardly have, of using AOL IP's when I don't have access to them, you name it.

And why? Because I have a different perspective to 172 and his left wing associates and regard the article as failing even the most generous neutrality test. I have responded carefully to the arguments and to claims made by 172, I have said nothing about him personally and have no wish to do so. 172 has been the subject of an arbitration case where similar aggression was evident.

The archive of the Talk page indicates a level of abuse I didn't think was permitted at all, riddled with profanity and obscenity. His claim that I have engaged in such behavior does not withstand any scrutiny. 172 offered to withdraw from writing on the article and the talk page and I believe should be gently encouraged to do so. He has had a long time to enforce his will and some might think it's time to give someone else a chance.Libertas

I don't disagree that 172's editing on Soviet Union has sometimes been territorial. But that doesn't justify Libertas repeatedly trolling and making personal attacks on Talk:Soviet Union and elsewhere, activities no one else engaged in this dispute has done. RadicalSubversiv E 10:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv, you have "trolled" me repeatedly, following me into articles you hadn't previously edited, accusing me falsely in the terms outlined above etc. 172 has acted similarly. This matter can be resolved but not if you don't accept compromise, as I am very willing to do. Libertas

well, do we have any guidelines for non-arbcom-sanctioned short-term blocking for extreme trolling/ranting/harassment? (if we don't, boy do we need them). I am all for acting on impulse of common sense, but you'd need to be able to point to some policy if your block is later criticised, even when acting with the most pure intentions. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, sentence first verdict later, is that what you're proposing? Libertas

yes, in obvious cases of policy violation, after fair warning, by admins previously not involved in the dispute, for 24h at first, and up to a month in cases of repeated violations. WP would become sheer madness if we could not do that. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy would Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, but I'm not an admin. In any case, Libertas has agreed, at my suggestion, to remove his comments from Talk:Soviet Union which do not pertain to the article's content. My opinion would be that he should not be blocked unless he resumes the disruptive behaviors in question. RadicalSubversiv E 11:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that's right, thanks. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The user in question is currently engaged in cleansing his comments from the past week. [7] This is objectionable; by changing his own wordings, it is confusing the context in which all the replies were made. This will just make it easier for more of my comments to be twisted around and used against me. I have little doubt that this behavior will continue until all of us have bended to the will of a single user. 172 11:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. Unless they are a developer, they can't delete their comments from the history, so if you have to make a point in the future, all you have to do is link to an old version that contains the un-expurgated comment. (I emphasize "have" because we've all done things in the past that sometimes we'd like to forget, so if this user improves, let's not nag them with their past, OK?) Noel (talk) 15:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am following Radical's advice about removing provocative and irrelevant comments, it wasn't my idea it was his. I confirmed with him as evidenced on our talk pages that I could edit my own comments. I am only editing my own comments. I can assure you I don't want to spend my time doing it but I am taking up Radical's suggestion. Is there anything I can do that won't offend? Libertas

well, you could leave a note like 'comment removed', just for the orientation of new-comers. If the removals are a gesture of good-faith, I suppose they will be recognized as such. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AOL. Noel (talk) 15:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An uninvolved party should do this. If I did it, I would almost certainly be accused of acting of bias somehow. But it should be done, as it renders a completely distorted picture of the dialogue... The point of this request for help, after all, was to encourage some sort of intervention to prevent such behavior in the future, not to rewrite the records of the past. Thanks for your input. 172 12:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sure. I think you should just archive the whole ugly thing, wholesale, and see if you can write a short summary what you are arguing about. There seems to be a valid dispute at the core, and it just got out of hand. If Libertas and you agree to sort it out concisely, there is no need for intervention. And Libertas has shown prepared to start over, I think, by complying with rad's suggestion, even if this has temporarily added to the confusion. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:62.253.219.130

This user is creating nonsense articles again after earlier warnings for quite some time. Can someone look into his blocking history and increase the block time this time around? Mgm|^(talk) 13:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking them for 1 month and reverting their garbage (including some that should have been cleaned up a few months ago...) - UtherSRG 13:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to ask everyone once more to please check their past edits when reverting vandals (I'll admit to forgetting to do this myself too, but it is very important). --fvw* 14:07, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

a month seems like the upper limit, considering that this is a broadband IP (ntl.com), and may be assigned to a new user any day. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR at the troubled Clitoris article

No surprise to see a 3RR violation at the Clitoris article and no surprise to see that it involves User:Irate. Both he and User:Cookiecaper need to be blocked for 24 hours but I'd rather not do it myself after previous problems between myself and Irate. Would appreciate a neutral admin being involved, but please be aware that this issue has been going on for months and is still having edit wars (thus, in my opinion, there should be no leniency). violet/riga (t) 18:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved anymore (have given up), so I blocked both for 24h. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I no longer take part in the discussions. I suggested one system of voluntary censorship but I don't think the argument will stop until the user has an option in their preferences; even then I don't expect a speedy resolution. Thanks for that anyway JFW – please let me know if there's any comeback about it. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are both on the wikiEN-l mailing list complaining now and as they both reverted only three times but not more they appear to be in the right. Fred Bauder 02:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the third revert was the blockable offense. I don't really care, I'll unblock these characters on your authority. JFW | T@lk 07:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in that article but was recently blocked by an Admin who I was in dispute with. He blocked me without warning and without any reference to any rules. He resigned as a result.

I think this highlights a real problem. Blocking is a drastic penalty and except in very clear cases of vandalism should not be done without a disinterested party making the decision. That seems not to happen very much.

And while I am not at all familiar with the clitoris article and could just imagine the nasty pubescents running amok there, I found JFW's comments on this page disturbing.

JFW said "I'm not involved anymore (have given up), so I blocked both for 24h."

- Not what I could consider to be a disinterested party and in any event an outrageous basis for blocking them (maybe there was a better unstated reason)

and then when called to account by Fred Bauder responded

I was under the impression that the third revert was the blockable offense. I don't really care, I'll unblock these characters on your authority.

• If JFW doesn't know the rules, how can s/he be entrusted to enforce them
• If JFW doesn't care about the situation, how can s/he continue to hold this authority over others.

I think the threshold for these unilateral blockings is too low. I think many people entrusted with the power are not coping well. And I hope some reforms are considered. Libertas

I know nothing about this other than what I have read here, but I have to say it reflects poorly on all concerned and the response to Fred Bauder beggars belief. We admins need to know the rules before applying them. I'm inclined to think that blocking logged-in users should require some kind of consensus (maybe using this page?) rather than being at an uninformed or potentially biased whim. Filiocht 10:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Irate broke the 3RR and blanked an attempted solution at the clitoris (censored) article. Cookiecaper, I note, had not done four reverts and believe I miscounted there - apologies to him. The article needs sorted and while attempts have been made I find it shocking that the argument there has gone on for months without getting any closer to resolution. People continuing the edit war on the article itself need to be stopped, though in this isntance I see Cookiecaper as someone attempting to suggest a fix (though one that some do not agree with). I used to be involved in the discussion too but have now withdrawn, knowing that a solution isn't just around the corner. Do not be harsh on JFW as he too has been party to the ridiculousness of the discussions there. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JFW should make very sure s/he knows the applicable policies before blocking someone. Especially in cases of "not being involved anymore" (in such a case I do not think any intervention is advisable). Otoh, admins are "not expected to be perfect", and honest mistakes will be corrected quickly by other admins. Admins are expected to have an above-average level of policy-adherence and civility, and are naturally expected to apologize to those affected by their mistakes. If the war gets out of hand, just protect the page. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But it should be admins that are not part of the argument that look into rule contravention. violet/riga (t) 13:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with blaming anyone. People who repeatedly revert the same material day after day, or otherwise engage in lengthy and fruitless edit wars are a bane. That someone may error in such cases as to a particular rule is understandable. However efforts should be made to avoid such errors and if noticed they ought to be corrected. Fred Bauder 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fvw

User:Fvw is reverting the insertion of a CBC News documentary about Dick Cheney without discussion because it reflects negatively on Cheney. Block this user for violating the three revert rule. GWB.

I've reverted it just as I've reverted the rest of your vandalism spree. The link is an ad for a TV show, and is entirely not useful for the article. If you're going to contend it's a serious edit though, as opposed to your other edits, I'll leave it for someone else to revert the fourth time. --fvw* 15:52, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I did not go on a vandalism spree. Okay, maybe on Ashcroft. But the Bush pic was real. President George W. Bush 15:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for User Name Review

I believe that it is unlikely that President George W. Bush is in fact the President George W. Bush we all know and love.

I am no expert but I believe the user name is in violation of the name policy. Could someone please review this.

Libertas