Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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

Current issues

Durzatwink and Styrofoam1994

These two seem to be taking light-hearted friendship a little too far, with fake warnings left on talk pages and this sockpuppetry report. I know it's only good faith humour, so obviously I'm not asking for the hammer of Thor on this one, but perhaps someone could step in, delete the report and tell each user to use their time more productively? (Lovebirds...) haz (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the situation for some time since coming across User:Styrofoam1994 via my contribution of new editors sweep. I think he just wants to play. Deleted the SSP as test page. A couple of more eyes with some slight steering in the right direction might help. Agathoclea (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that closed the first SSP case and did the blocks therein. Note I made User:Rws_killer the master as it's the oldest account. The newer (deleted) SSP case is really interesting. Durzatwink's edits are similar to the other socks and he appear just a couple of days after the blocks I did. Based on that alone, it looks like a new sock. But the odd parts are Durzatwink calling Styrofoam1994 his "adoptee" (when Durzatwink's claiming he's a new user) and Styrofoam1994 making attacks (like "perv") on his page and also impersonating an admin--I'm warning Styrofoam on both these points. In summation, I think we should RFCU the whole bunch and sort this out. Agathaclea is right to be suspicious, but I think we need to dig deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Their friendship seems to have cooled extremely suddenly. I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. (see User:Sanjay517) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here at all, but you should see User talk:MasterofMinds also. --omtay38 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Styrofoam1994's Rollback privileges be revoked? Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that unless my sockpuppet suspicions are confirmed in some way, Styrofoam should probably keep his privileges. After all, rollback is no more of a big deal than using Twinkle, as the page itself states. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have evidence to believe that MasterofMinds is the sockpuppet master of user:Sanjay517 Here Here Here}}. The sockpuppet also admit that he has controll of the account which is stated [here]. There seems to be two ip adresses involved which are 76.98.1.12 and [76.98.7.176]. As you can see, they both participated in User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat‎. Altough most of the time these accounts did not cause any harm to Wikipedia, there was 1 incident in activated me to post this and that is Here. Although it does not seem too bad, I consider it as vandalism. If any of you want to, you cant make a case here WP:SSP. Happy editing ^_^--DurzaTwink^TALK 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the teachers of that particular school could be alerted to put a lesson on on-line privacy protection onto the curriculum. This might solve most of the problems. Anyway the real crux of the matter is whether $NAMEOFPUPPETMASTER is banned in the wiki sense of the word.

trouble was further brewing at WP:ANI.

What troubles me is the fact that DurzaTwink gets frequently referred to by his real or imagined real-life name by the other parties of this conflict - which appears to be a reallife schoolyard conflict which has spilled over into wikipedia. One way of stopping that would be to delete the "Game".

AS far as rollback privileges are concerned this is clearly a case of rollback used in a conflict. Agathoclea (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mfd now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Styrofoam1994/Offbeat. -- Agathoclea (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a limit as to how many cases of sockpuppetry a user can make against another? Styrofoam1994 is planning to make a 3rd case stated here and to be quite honest, it is getting very tiresome to constantly defened against these accusations every time since I have other work that must be done. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these accusations in which he is attacking me with, has consumed my time for making good and constructive edit. Is there some way that the admins can set up something that would seperate us for the time being untill we cool down and come to terms? Thank you --DurzaTwink^TALK 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Alison confirmed that Durzatwink was Nyu pendragon with a CU, as seen at the link that Durzat herself (himself?) gave. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is regards to your recent confusion over sex. *cough* himself *cough* lol--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I reopened the sockpuppet case for Durzatwink with that evidence added, here. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 03:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved, with DurzaTwink indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Rws killer. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Durza indefinitely for sockpuppetry and trolling/personal attacks, and Styrofoam for 48 hours for a 3RR violation and personal attacks. I have also revoked Styrofoam's right to use rollback. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:GR

I non-admin kept this protected template. Could an admin remove the notice for TfD? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Happy-melon resolved it. Thanks to him. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Hi. An editor, Maglev_Power, seems to be deleting the term "Totalitarianism" from dozens of pages, all in a few minutres. Could someone please look this over? See: here, Thanks. --Cberlet (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like POV, but I do not want to start edit war with him. Maybe leave a message on his talk page as to why he is doing this. Igor Berger (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a request for him to cease and desist the removals, and suggested discussing the tagging at the WikiProject for the tag he's removing. We'll see if it happens.. a look at the editor's history suggests this isn't a first time for this kind of activity. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor is Maglev Power (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He seems to be rapid-fire content dispute with everyone else on Wikipedia. He is even removing references to Wikipedia:WikiProject Totalitarianism, since it contains the word 'Totalitarianism.' He has been going for about 40 minutes and seems to have made about 100 changes so far. He has blocked in late January for 24 hours for 3RR after doing something similar but that block has expired. He just resumed less than an hour ago. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to think it's POV to have those articles listed under that WikiProject. I've asked again for him to take it to the WikiProject for discussion. If he keeps up, can I get some thoughts on whether this is disruption? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommed a 24 hour block unless he stop right now! Igor Berger (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks users because of a disagreement over content is inappropriate. I am willing to discuss the merits of my removal of the tags on a case-by-case basis, on each individual article talk page. Maglev Power (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "totalitarianism" is hotly contested by political scientists. It is a serious violation of NPOV and NOR for Wikipedia users to be randomly and arbitrarily inserting this tag in pages on specific regimes and individuals. The tag can go in articles that directly relate to the subject, such as totalitarianism and post-totalitarianism, books on the subject, and theorists who contributed to the concept such as Hannah Hannah Arendt. I am only removing the tag from where the classification of the subject as "totalitarianism" is subejct to serious disagreemnt within the realm of schoalrly research. Maglev Power (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is "serious disagreement" that Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were at least somewhat related to totalitarianism. And since when do talk pages have to be NPOV anyway? I would add that democracy and human rights are also hotly debated by political scientists, but we don't ignore the existance of those subjects. --ElPeruano (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Maglev Power, that's your opinion. Other people have different opinions. Hence we have a process here called WP:CONSENSUS to edit articles and various dispute resolution procedures should consensus fails. We should not even be discussing the merits of your position here. As a single editor you do not have veto power over what gets written on Wikipedia and what does not. There is clearly broad or universal opposition to the changes you are making from a number of serious, experienced editors. Please desist from these contentious edits immediately. Let us know whether you intend to stop or continue, and whether you will edit war on this if all of your edits are rolled back. If you do mean to continue, I would suggest an indefinite or long-term block unless and until you promise not to further disrupt the project. I have left a message on your talk page to that effect. Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked what you said about Thailand totalitarianism which is not. It is authoritative. But your way of doing it is gaming the system which is against Wikipedia policy. So all your edits have to be undone and you can discuss them one at a time as you would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits are not against consensus. It is a matter of longtime consensus on Wikipedia that the term "totalitarianism" is a subjectley applied, pejorative POV-term, even with regards to Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR. Hence the deletion of the pages like Category:Totalitarian dictators and "list of totalitarian dictators" a long time ago. Maglev Power (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a little hard to argue that your edits are part of a broad consensus when you didn't discuss them at all before you started, and once people realized what you were doing the ran here to complain. Obviously, many editors think what you are doing is not helpful. --ElPeruano (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not repeat the arguments becuase the Wikipedia community already had the discussion a long time ago. See the pages leading to the deletion of "list of dictators" (previously list of totalitarian dictators) [1] and the category "totalitarian dictators" [2] Maglev Power (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I still recommend a 24 hour block even if he promisses to stop. He literaly desrupted Wikipedia for WP:POINT Igor Berger (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is not punitive. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is preventative. This user has a track record of this unilateral editing, and I'm just considering how long the block should be. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here he thinks we are threatening him with a block. So he still thinks he is right to disrupt Igor Berger (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been said many a time that a user has a right to remove a warning once they have read it. And seeing as he appears to have stopped his behavior, I think we should go ahead and assume good faith and allow the user to see where consensus lies. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on totalitarianism as a POV term

For users who are bringing up the matter of "consensus" on the project, I invite them to go the past deletion discussions that bring up the same concerns that I am stating now. See the pages leading to the deletion of "list of dictators" (previously list of totalitarian dictators) [3] and the category "totalitarian dictators" [4] Maglev Power (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not discussed THESE edits, however; I'd suggest doing so before continuing. At present, they appear to be bordering on disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you were removing mentions of totalitarianism from article space, you may have a point. However, your edits are to talk space, which aren't governed by WP:NPOV in the same way: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)..." Additionally, by performing this lengthy series of edits, you are creating a mass disruption of a WikiProject whose presumed purpose is (among other things) to achieve consensus on whether an article's topic is or is not related to totalitarianism, and you apparently began this disruption campaign without bothering to discuss that consensus with the members of said WikiProject. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maglev Power's concerns are noted. I suggest that the WikiProject should have some discussion tagging articles appropriately, and discuss this editor's POV concerns on the project's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User not taking matter seriously - suggest rollback and possible block

At this point the user is not seriously responding to concerns over his behavior - he deleted my warning calling it a "threat." He hasn't answered whether he intends to stop but from all indications he is not. I have started reversing his contentious edits beginning with this one on January 23. I likely won't get through them all but I suggest we simply roll them back. If he continues this or resists restoring the articles, I suggest an indefinite block. Wikidemo (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 24 hour block. Igor Berger (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am stopping for the moment because I am too busy with the discussion here. I am not the issue here. You have yet to reply to the evidence to which I have pointed showing that there is a longtime consensus on Wikipedia regarding the recognition of "totalitarian" as a POV-term. Threatening to block me indefinitely because you disagree with me on a content matter is also quite inappropriate and anti-Wiki, and a bit totalitarian, if you were to use that term. Maglev Power (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Maglev Power (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the following 5 comments). I don't have to reply to anything. Totalitarian is not my term and this is not my issue. I am giving you a behavior warning, not a threat. You're making contentious edits against consensus to make some kind of a WP:POINT that are causing a lot of concern by a lot of people. If you disagree as a policy matter with the content of hundreds of articles at once, you should bring it up and advocate your position in an appropriate forum and try to get some agreement for your changes. You are not entitled to single-handedly change that many articles simply because you feel that they violate some policy. At that point it is a behavior problem, not a content disagreement. I've reverted ten but I will go no farther - once this is settled my guess is that all of your contentious edits will be reversed. By starting to revert my edits (which are entirely appropriate under the BRD cycle) you've made it clear you intend to edit war on the topic. It's ridiculous to claim that Saddam Hussein should be removed from the totalitarianism project. Edit warring over that is misbehavior, not a content issue. I'm not an administrator and I can't block you. I'm simply laying out an argument that you ought to be blocked for this kind of disruption, and that the status quo should be returned rather than allowing a disruptive editor to keep the fruits of their inappropriate editing. I'm likely not going to stick around for the full debate, though. Other fish to fry. Wikidemo (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• These are you words, "I am stopping for the moment because I am too busy with the discussion here." So if you were not busy here, you would continue you Totalitarian crusade? Igor Berger (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He actually has started again at Talk:Saddam Hussein, and the block tariff has just cranked up a notch. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

At at Talk:Burma, and I've blocked for 24 hours to prevent further damage. If any admin feels this is inappropriate, please feel free to reverse me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that block. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I. If he wants to try to get the WikiProject renamed, he should take that to the WikiProject, not remove all their tags. Bencherlite^Talk 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should not take as so long to block a vandal. The editor may not be a vandal but the actions are. We are told to WP:AGF but there is a limit of it and we have to WP:ABF Igor Berger (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is AN & not ANI, so it's a little bit slower paced. But to continue his course of action while this discussion is running, to me shows a level of contempt for his fellow-editors that throws AGF straight out of the window. Reasonably-minded editors, I would hope would stop and think, not pause and then continue. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All tag-removals have been rolled back. 'Night all. Bencherlite^Talk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor's username caught my attention - a leading proponent of Maglev rail is Lyndon LaRouche. Reviewing his contributions, it appears he's been promoting the LaRouche viewpoint in articles, particularly Myanmar (LaRouche think that its proper name is "Myanmar" and that the British are trying to overthrow its government [5]), and Save Darfur Coalition‎ (LaRouche thinks the claims of atrocities are a fraud [6]). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but regardless, clearly, it is one of the more problematic wikiprojects and wikiproject talk page tags that we have, with a great potential for abuse. As such, I'm not entirely pleased with the manner in which tags for this wikiproject were added to talk pages, en masse, on December 2 by User:Kintetsubuffalo, without edit summaries.^[7] El_C 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it's not that Kintetsubuffalo failed to use edit summaries to hide the addition of tags for this wikiproject versus other (noncontroversial) ones added in the same succession of edits: he does not use edit summaries at all. Upon notification of this discussion, I asked the user to adopt edit summary use, in general. Helpfully, it'll resonate. El_C 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments without my explicit consent, Wikidemo (!). I just wish to note, in answer to Kintetsubuffalo's blanksponse to my message, where he states: "Undid revision 188989580 by El C don't care,"^[8] that I, El C, do, in fact, care. Thx! El_C 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized to El_C on my own talk page and promised that it was a mistake on my part - not that a mistake makes it any better, but I was being a complete dunderhead and thought I was editing my own comment to correct a misstatement. Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable

Just FYI: [9]. And I'm sure Tim's not the only one. --bainer (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support Tim's comment. The history of the Main Page is a joke. - auburnpilot talk 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure this was done with good intentions... boy, this strikes me as spectacularly bad judgement. It also highlights a function that could be used in ways less benevolent. This ignores the fact that the Main page appears to have been deleted once *(Per CSD G6!) in the process, albiet briefly. I'm a new admin, so maybe there's conversation on this topic I've missed... But, I have to agree with Tim's comments. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim has already blocked BetacommandBot for one week, due to "abuse of system resources". [10] - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so how did BCB, a non-admin bot, edit a protected page. I'm seeing some odd things going on in the page history with restoring deleted edits, etc. And shouldn't something like this get approved somewhere before its done? Isn't this the purpose of WP:BAG? I know there is a technical switch that would make the main page undeletable by anyone including the devs, which isn't flicked since we don't want to do anything that can never be undone. So this is basically doing that (aking it undeletable) the way I see it, which is somewhat against consensus IMHO MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits were made in userspace and the page was moved by an administrator into the mainspace. Nakon 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this discussed anywhere beforehand? --Rory096 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no approval and no consensus that this was need - a well deserved week long block. The main page history is destroyed now. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to selectivly delete prior revisions like oversight but not as extreme). If it cant be automated, maybe hand-deleting (oy!) will be required. Worst case, there might be a consensus to oversight the interjected edits (yea I know its against policy, but I'm not seeing the harm). MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight works on a single revision at a time; good luck finding an oversighter that's willing to go through 5,000 revisions by hand. ;-) Kirill 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to BCBs history, it made about 1100 of the edits to that page, still it would be an unfair burden on an uninvolved oversighter to have to do that. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the whole point is that nobody other than the devs can delete pages with over 5000 edits. They'd have to be the ones to remove all of the bot edits, if I'm remembering correctly. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Betacommandbot's block is any more "well deserved" than a block of the administrators who collaborated on this venture would be. All the bot did was make a bunch of null edits to a user subpage. Mike R (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have blocked the users involved as well; the administrators, in particular, are expected to consider the consequences before they do something of this sort. Kirill 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The admins involved obviously screwed up, but remember blocks are preventive, not punitive. --Rory096 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously discussed somewhere beforehand. My guess is IRC. Mike R (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason the bot was blocked and the admins weren't is that 1. Tim was afraid of the bot doing this to many other pages and had to act quickly. 2. Bots go through a special process to get the BOT flag and that process allows harsher action when they mess up, Admins, generally have the grace of an RfC/AN/Arbcom discussion. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think blocking Betacommandbot is justified, since as far as I know, it isn't approved for this (though maybe I'm wrong, given the massive list. At any rate, it seems like it should definitely have been discussed first (on wiki), and was probably a bad idea. Apparently, East718 was the one to do the move, and it was done in his userspace. It might also make sense to block him and Betacommand. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

{unindent) Tim Starling has proposed here [11] that East 718 be de-sysoped for his behavior in this matter. What forum should this request be discussed in? MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the proper venue would be, but I'd assume ArbCom. Thankfully one of the devs has removed the bot's junk edits from the Main Page history.[12] - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of silly anyway. Why do we restrict administrator tools like delete and protect to administrators? Because we trust them to know what they're doing. We restricted deletions to pages with less than 5000 revisions because it's not obvious that it's going to break the site. This is something completely different — an administrator clicked a button that said "Delete the main page". An administrator should not click such a button unless they actually wish to delete the main page. Testing is for test-wikis — this is not the sort of thing you mess about with on the main page of the 8th most used website in the world! Applying restrictions like this is not needed if we have an appropriate mechanism for distinguishing prospective administrators who know what they are doing with those who don't — or a culture of caution with regards to administrative functions. As for the use of the bot, we have a bot approvals group for a reason. I am aware that Betacommand is on it, and should know better than this. — Werdna talk 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What need has there ever been to delete the main page? Or move it? Why are the tabs even there? The delete tab is currently hidden, but why not just remove the options altogether? Lara❤Love 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:9625 seems to indicate it won't ever happen. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main concern here is not with the end result (making the main page undeletable) but rather the means to get there (the apparent unilateral and unsupported move by two editors to dump 1200 junk edits into the main page) which represented an unintended exploit of a recently hacked-in safety feature and is rather an object lesson in how to use said safety feature to be disruptive. The two editors in question were NOT trying to be disruptive per se, but now it is plainly clear that one could use their means to be disruptive. I am not sure that the recommended blockings and/or desysoppings are justified or not, but this does seem like the wrong way to go about doing things. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is actually good that there is something highly visible for compromised admin accounts to delete or vandalize. A bit of good old delete-the-main-page-for-lulz will send people searching for stewards pretty fast. The latest case was desysopped in three minutes... – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla doesn't appear to have reached any sort of consensus. In fact, the page reads like more people agree that there's no need to have the option to delete the main page. Certain pages just don't need the option. Considering the delete and move tabs serve no useful purpose on these pages, and having them leaves the risk of abuse and server lockdown, why not just remove the option? Having the main page to the (currently) 9th most viewed website in the world be down for a few minutes is bad times when it's pointless and avoidable. Lara❤Love 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Bugzilla is not consensus-based. Brion Vibber, the lead developer and Wikimedia CTO, resolved the bug as "won't fix" and then marked it closed. But that bug was filed as a request to have the feature exist and be enabled by default in the core software. A Wikimedia-specific hack (as Tim has now implemented) is a different question. I still don't think it's a good idea, for the reason I gave on the bug. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vital tasks

I seem to remember that BCB does some tasks like RFC bot's job, CfD (I don't know what that is), Spamreports, Image moving, and image renaming. What is our contingency plan for it being unable to do those tasks for a week? Yes, I know it does non-free image and orphan image work, but I'm not considering that vital given the existing huge backlogs at those areas. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a contingency plan for such things. The bot system is like the wild west. Everyone runs their own code and there is very little redundancy. I have supported for a long time the division of Betacommandbot's tasks into separate usernames instead of a single username - BetacommandBot 1, BetacommandBot 2, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how complex these tasks are, but the RFC one in particular seems pressing as part of the WP:DR process. How hard would it be for an uninvolved bot operator to code up a quick and dirty substitute? Or is there a by-hand process that explains how to replace the bot with actual editors. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The RFC bot has somewhat complex behavior. I estimate that someone with a lot of experience with bot programming should be able to code a replacement in a day of dedicated work with no interruptions. But it would be better if the code was publicly available (I don't know whether it is). Even then, it might take a few hours for a new operator to get the code running on their machine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, BCB is (as of a discussion in 2007 [13]) proprietary code. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, RFC bot is/was operated by Messedrocker. BCbot seems to handle this task now, though. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell, just unblock the bot. That script isn't running anymore and Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked. --Rory096 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Tim is a developer and I think is an employee of the foundation under Wikipedia:OFFICE#Who_does_office_actions so that might be a consideration in unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not an "office action". Do as you see fit. Rory096 says "Betacommand presumably knows not to run it again, so there's no reason to keep it blocked". I don't believe Betacommand has learnt any lessons for this, he's a stubborn kind of guy. He certainly didn't make any apologies when I was talking to him about it on IRC. If he does it again, I'll block him again. I've written the script to clean up his mess now, so it won't be so much trouble for me the second time. -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should make sure we get a promise out of him not to do it again (as he seems to have given below), and then consider actions to make sure anything like this doesn't happen again- not only exploiting some fix for some problem in an way that wasn't intended by those who implemented the fix, but also any unapproved, undiscussed bot functions, and to consider splitting BetacommandBot's functions so any one of the functions can be blocked without causing all the others to stop working. --Rory096 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rory096,Ive been working on seperating the accounts, its just not that simple. And Ive been pushed for other requests, see commons:User:BetacommandBot, for the recent image re-naming. As Ive said before this was a single request, and with no future plans on repeating. β^_command 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some back story behind RFC bot. I came up with the idea; Betacommand wrote it for me. It exists under the MIT license at this location. It is supposed to run on my toolserver account, but it takes up too much memory as the result of being somewhat broken. Therefore, it goes down once it reaches the toolserver's threshold of 1GB of RAM, and it is killed off by memory management software. While Betacommand is fixing it, he is using his account (that or the bot's) to continue operations; this is not unheard of, as Betacommand's account and his bot are used as testing vectors for new versions of the software.

The issue behind the bot is that objects in memory are forming too quickly without being given enough time to die off. I am going to slow the refresh rate from 5 minutes to 60 minutes to see if that will allow it to be ran on the toolserver without complication. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know BCB doesn't like to spread his code around, but honestly, I feel like more bots should take up some of his tasks either in case he doesn't wish to run it or a situation like this happens again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note from developer

Tim Starling has sent an email to the wikitech-l list in which he strongly criticizes the practice of adding meaningless revisions to a page. At the very least, everyone should take away the message "don't do that". — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea at the time ... BCBot hadn't quite added enough revisions to make the page undeletable. I have therefore given myself a suitable punishment. I now understand the slippery slope issue this could cause. Graham87 08:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah... what? That's not the point I can't understand that matters. The point I can't understand that matters is why there is so much inertia. Could this not have been discussed publicly, on-wiki? Some lessons need to be drawn from this. And Tim noting that Betacommand seems unwilling or unable to do this, well, that does not inspire confidence. El_C 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page cannot be deleted or moved on any Wikimedia wiki now. Graham87 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it can still be moved. WODUP 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It can't. I just tried on testwiki:Main Page. When you submit the form, you get a big red "You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested." WODUP 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not let admins delete the main page? It is a canary in a coal mine, if an account is compromised or has gone berserk then they often delete the main page and lose their admin bit within 10 minutes. This is a good thing, it keeps the damage to a minimum. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other pages they can delete inappropriately. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Messiness of bot records and COI

Just a note on an issue that's relevant to this case: For the past several days, I've been working on the records over at Wikipedia:Bots/Status. A brief look at through records yields the fact that they're in horrible condition, both inaccurate and out-of-date. There's also the outdated page, Wikipedia:Registered bots. And both of these records don't likely match up with the list of users with a bot flag.

This makes it practically impossible for admins to keep track of bot abuse.

Overall, there appears to be a COI with WP:BOT:

• The bot approvals group are required to be bot owners or programmers themselves, so naturally, they tend to be liberal about handing out bot privileges and may turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, or defend it (that's a speculation -- not an assumption -- of bad faith). Though they take into account the community's commentary, they still have a leading role.
• The bot approvals' group primarily maintains the bot records. Well, again, why should they care about maintaining good records? If they don't, then it's a lot easier to get away with this kind of thing.

I suspect that cleaning up the records and a thorough review of all users flagged or listed as bots would yield the fact that there's more bot abuse going on than people are aware of. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a beancounter, but maybe we could audit the active bots on the project. There should be a list of everyone with a bot flag somewhere, as well as the list of registered bots. We sent a talk page comment to every operator and bot on both lists: "Hey, we're updating records, please update the status of your bot here. If we don't hear from you in a week (or whatever), your bot will be listed as inactive." Whether inactive bots are de-flagged, blocked, or otherwise noted is up to consensus - but, I'd recommend that the operator checks in and updates status before resuming his/her bot's operations. This might also be a good chance to audit approved functions that current bots no longer do, so we can identify functions that other bots might pick up. Just tossing out an idea or two, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that most complaints about bots are not in line with policy, and those that do are dealt with promptly. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are often dealt with quickly but, in some instances, it seems that the previous intervention does not preclude future issues from the same bot operator. Which is frustrating, at best. --Iamunknown 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can get a list of flagged bots from special pages. I'm sure if you offer to compare with the Status and Registered Bots pages, and the user contributions of those bots, and invite updates where needed, the bot community would welcome it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Just a note- the opposite of assuming good faith is not assuming bad faith, it's not assuming good faith. Speculation of bad faith is, therefore, violating AGF just as much as an assumption of bad faith would be. That said, you could have made the same points you just did while at the same time assuming that everyone's acting in good faith. --Rory096 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right, Rory. Sorry. Yes, I am probably just being paranoid. On the bright side, it did make for a neat addition to WP:List of cabals.

Still, at the very least, I'm right about the bad record-keeping, just wrong on the lack of WP:AGF. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The record keeping on approvals is pretty good last time I looked. But the status page relies on bot operators to update it, which if they go-away, die, just plain forget, whatever, is not always going to happen. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Summary

Trying to summarise the above:

• (1) The Main Page got deleted accidentally after a "joke" discussion on IRC led someone to test the assertion that the Main Page couldn't be deleted. See Wikipedia:ANI#I deleted the Main Page.
• (2) Some other off-wiki discussions led to two users (an admin and a bot operator) to implement a workaround to prevent this in future, based on the recent "5000+ revisions = can't delete" fix. They did this by having a bot do lots of null edits to a subpage (User:East718/empty), and then the admin deleted the Main Page and merged the two histories (see also here), thus bring the edit count up above 5000 (well, in fact it seems they possibly fell short, and two other admins (User:Nakon and User:Graham87) made some manual null edits to bring the total above 5000; one later blocked himself for doing this, see here). The bot in question was BetacommandBot, but the edits are no longer visible because they got removed at some deep level by developers (because the page was over 5000 edits, only developers could do this - see point 5).
• (3) Tim Starling found out about this (see here and here) and blocked BetacommandBot for 1 week for "abuse of system resources", and has called for East718 to be desysopped.
• (4) A technical fix now means that the main pages on all WMF wikis can't be deleted or moved (regardless of how many edits they have). However, this is not a true fix. See here for a process that could be used for emergency deletion.
• (5) The 'junk' revisions have been removed from the Main Page history.
• (6) Several other discussions are ongoing, on mailing lists and on-wiki and (presumably) elsewhere. The wiki-tech mailing list disucssion has been linked, and there is this WP:AN thread. Two others are: Main Page talk page discussion, wiki-en mailing list, and a bugzilla discussion.

I think I have that about right. What needs to be sorted out moving forwards?

• (A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's block and how to handle the work it does.
• (B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points.
• (C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag.

My views are that the block on BetacommandBot should remain, if only to force the community to face up to the consequences of a permanent block or future departure (for whatever reasons), and hence become less reliant on this (and other bots) in case things like this happen again. It is not acceptable to have bots be "unblockable" because they do "vital work". Splitting of bot functions seems well overdue. I'm not too fussed about East718's sysop flag - I don't think he will do anything like this again any time soon. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC, but I concur with Carcharoth's summary of the issues. I would also add as a footnote that, whatever happens, I believe East718's actions were undertaken in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia (and the security of the main page). The elements of concern in my mind are the lack of discussion beforehand, not necessarily on the intent itself. I also believe that that should be taken into account during any further proceedings, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of benefit to the discussion of Task A, in re: Betacommandbot's block, the prefix list for all Requests for Bot Approval regarding Betacommandbot. I'm sure there's a more recent summary somewhere, but this might be a good place to start. The critical task I am aware of is tagging Disputed Fair Use Rationale images, but - given the active backlog on that category, adding more images to the backlog seems to be a low priority at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling made it clear above that he will accept unblocking Betacommandbot. Doing so would be the simplest way to move forward. Rewriting all the bot code would be nice, but ultimately it's probably not worth it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably is the simplest solution, I agree. But whoever does it needs to make clear in the log summary that bots should not be merely unblocked to carry out other tasks. Becoming indispensable through one set of bot tasks is not a free license to carry out other (unapproved) bot tasks. This is a serious concern that has been brought up in the past and never satisfactorily addressed. It is effectively the same thing with editors (eg. Giano is effectively being asked to split his functions as article writer and Wikipedia namespace contributor). Humans can't always be asked to split between role accounts, but bots can and should be. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason I haven't unblocked the bot myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, my actions were a single one time request, that I did not think would cause as much trouble as it did. I did and do not have any plans on repeating the incident. Im am sorry that my good faithed attempt to protect the encyclopedia, caused as much drama as it did. I dont like drama. As for the source for my bots, I am willing to share it with people that I can trust. I wrote RfC bot and gladly handed that code out to a user that I know is responcible. I have also written code for other users and they have abused it, since then I only give it to people I can trust. within the next month or so I also plan on releasing the code for my image renaming script. (I need to finish testing and clean up the code). β^_command 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, do you want to tell Tim this and ask if he will unblock the bot? Or would you prefer the community to review the block of the bot? Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I told tim prior him blocking that that was a single event that I was not planning on repeating. But he was fairly mad at the time. if someone wants to try and talk to tim for me Id be thankful, or if the community wants to review it. β^_command 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all this would be an excellent argument for requiring that all bots on Wikipedia be entirely open-source, and that this be periodically verified by someone attempting to run the bot on a test wiki and making sure it actually works as advertised. Why Wikipedia has not yet agreed on this I'm not sure, except to the extent that it seems never to be able to agree on anything. (Yes, yes, anti-vandal bots' source code will be open, I'm sure that will be a great aid to the huge number of vandals who are also programmers and malicious enough to spend hours analyzing twisty heuristic-based source code. The idea of security through openness is that they'll be outnumbered by the group that's identical but willing to help out by sharing any exploits they find.) Without open-source bots, it seems to me Wikipedia is asking to have major bot contributors get annoyed with the project and leave, or just disappear for any reason, seriously inconveniencing everyone. Actually, this has happened in the past, if I'm not wrong. How is it that The Free Encyclopedia is relying so heavily on non-free software? If not for the bots and scripts that are permitted to be closed, you could come close to saying that the only proprietary software used in creating and serving the encyclopedia is routing software.

But I doubt this is the first time that argument has been made. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more with Simetrical. Moreover, publishing the code, particularly during a BRFA, allows code review by other bot owners, and several improvements : DumZiBoT got significantly improved by Dispenser during its BRFA.

There is some pride in maintaining a bot, and I understand why some bot owners are reluctant to the idea of publishing their sources... However, keeping the source "secret" is not helping at all non-English wikis. From what I know, I have several examples of bots that could have been put in a great use at fr:, but that aren't, because the source is not available, and because English bot owners don't have time to spare for other projects... NicDumZ ~ 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NicDumZ, have you asked these bot operators about this? β^_command 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Positive. 'Want a concrete example ? I was thinking about SineBot : Slakr wants to develop a new tool, completely rewriting a PHP framework, and doesn't want to release SineBot's code until this is done. That's honorable, and I'm far from blaming him for this : Having such a new tool would certainly open a lot of new possibilities. However, this is taking a significant time : SineBot is running here since september... During that time, the only possibility that we, on fr, have to run such a bot, is to rewrite its code, and I personally consider this as a waste of time.

I mean. I am a bot owner, and I code everyday as a living : I don't want to blame any coder for their efforts, I also by myself have a lot of troubles when someone comes, looks at my hard work, and tells me : "This part of your code is useless, delete it", or when some random guy comes and add dubious functionalities to my script. But a strong fact is that several developers working together usually develop better tools than one developer alone, and eventually, I always consider these interventions as useful and helping. Just consider how efficient is the pywikipedia community ! At some extent, that's the way wikipedia works : others sticking their noses in your articles, in your work; but eventually, "your" articles are most of time far better with the help of others... Sharing the code is an immediate way to improve it. NicDumZ ~ 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NicDumZ, Ill see what I can do about sinebot. I think your approach to the operator could use some work. β^_command 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, even if that wasn't why I wrote this. I'm just saying that every coders have reasons not to publish their code (code cleaning, refactoring, new project, new functionalities, not enough time to maintain it/document it, and so on... ). Sometimes I just think that making a little effort to clean our botcodes to release it every week or so on one of our subpages could help *a lot* the community. NicDumZ ~ 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simetrical, your comment about vandals getting a big help from the source to anti-vandal bots is not really true. ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely as I said. I don't believe an open-source anti-vandal bot is any problem at all. You can sometimes make an argument for security through obscurity when heuristics are used, because a lot of correlations can be avoided with some care if the subject knows they're being looked at, but this isn't such a case. The overwhelming majority of vandals aren't going to trawl through source code or even know it exists, and the tiny number who might are too clever and careful to be tricked by a heuristic-based bot anyway. They'd probably spend their time getting through a rogue admin account or something, if they were interested in their vandalism not being immediately reverted.

So I don't see any reason for continuing the practice of permitting closed-source bots to operate. If it were up to me, an iron-clad criterion for bot operation would be publication on the web of the live source files actually being executed by the bot as it runs, and this would be enforced retroactively after a suitable grace period. I don't, unfortunately, have the time or inclination to immerse myself in Wikipedia policy-mongering hell sufficiently to actually get anything resembling this agreed to, but if anyone else does, you certainly have my support. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot Tasks

Somewhere floating around in the back of my mind, I have a recollection that the Bot Approval Group has to approve new tasks on Betacommand Bot. Or maybe I'm mixing that up with something else... can someone confirm/deny that? I think it has bearing on this: if such a requirement exists, and it was ignored, then we have a problem. If not, and I'm confused (which is more and more likely every day) then someone should feel free to strike through this section. ;-) The link I'm concerned with is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, but I may be misinterpreting it. - Philippe | Talk 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

that was related to the mess back early last year. approval for those tasks were rejected and I had to re-file. bots are usualy exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. β^_command 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know they were exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing. Thanks for explaining that. Cheers. - Philippe | Talk 16:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such exception. Can you point me to the location of this guideline? Happy‑melon 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not part of the guideline, as far as I'm aware, but neither is every single task completed or to be completed in Wikipedia. It has been allowed in the past at reasonable rates, mostly for statistics and record-keeping, but Betacommand's actions were neither at reasonable rates nor, uh, sane (although in good faith). Gracenotes^T § 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, were you aware that the edits, even though made to a user subpage, were going to be moved by East718 to the page history of Main Page? If so, then I'm afraid your excuse is the flimsiest and most disingenuous one I've ever seen. It is absolutely clear that any bot would need approval for a task to make edits to the main page. I see that WP:BAG are having elections at the moment, but this is something they will need to discuss as a matter of urgency. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this more, and I'm disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning here. Given that the task was run in userspace with the sole purpose of then affecting the main space, I think this reasoning is a cop-out. I believe the task should have been cleared through BAG and anything else is unacceptable. Betacommand knew that this was to be used on mainspace, and found a way to work around BAG restrictions. - Philippe | Talk 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And from a BAG member at that. Soxred93 | talk count bot 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not a BAG member - and neither is Betacommand. Or do I misunderstand? - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has been reinstated as a BAG member since December Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I gotta re-watchlist that page. See what I miss? - Philippe | Talk 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The next step

I believe Carcharoth has laid out the problem here perfectly, but I'm concerned about where we're going now. East and Betacommand have yet to comment on the issue, and until then I believe an ArbCom case with what we have is overkill. I'd prefer to see an RFC on user conduct initiated (preferably using Carcharoth's analysis as an introduction), so both users can share their views and rationales. There is unanimous consensus among the community that their actions were wrong, let's hear their responses and let the community decide what to do next. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lets take a step back for a minute and consider some points. East was quite clearly attempting to help the encyclopedia with what he did, as did Betacommand. I'm sure they didn't expect the drama that arose because of it. Whilst Tim Starling is a key developer, and don't think we need to take his advice without consideration of the facts - let's not start the desysopping talk - there was no malicious intent here, and by stopping the main page getting deleted, they were doing an honourable service for the project (although they went about it the wrong way). All seems sorted now, the revisions are gone - let's just move on, we really don't need this escalating further than it already has. I fail to see how an RfC would accomplish anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I assume (and don't doubt) that Betacommand and East were acting in good faith, that doesn't mean there certainly shouldn't be any action taken. Desysopping could be necessary if it's likely something like this can happen again in the future, even if this happened in good faith. It should be discussed whether the involved users have learned from their mistakes and will be sure to have a consensus before they do controversial things like this in the future, and we should seriously discuss what to do with BetacommandBot, so Wikipedia doesn't rely so much on a single bot to keep things running smoothly. There are certainly things to be done, or at least discussed, even though the users were acting in good faith. --Rory096 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Mtmelendez. I don't have time to initiate an RfC, but if anyone does, please feel free to copy paste my summary above, and add anything else that is needed. Possibly wait until the end of the day for more responses here, and pray that no-one files a presumptuous request for arbitration. Let's see if we can get things done productively, and address issues while minimising drama (Ryan, just letting it all go doesn't address the valid issues and concerns - this is precicely the sort of things that user conduct RfCs are for - pointing out lapses of judgment and getting community opinion on said lapses of judgment - doing this sort of thing without any on-wiki discussion, as far as I can tell, was unacceptable). Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that we let this go per se, many people have weighed in now, and I expect East realises his mistake - I just think it would be wrong to start an RfC over someone who made a good faith (yet extremely misguided) effort to help the encyclopedia. My advice would be for someone to go to Easts talk page, say that he messed up, don't let it happen again but that it is the end of it now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Waiting until East and Betacommand reply here is probably a good idea (but see the note below about East and the notice he has left). For the record, here is what Tim Starling said in that mailing list post:

      "East718 and Betacommand got together, and decided between themselves, apparently without review or approval by any other party, that they would add 1200 junk revisions to the main page. Betacommand edited User:East718/empty the requisite number of times, and then East718 deleted the main page, moved his subpage to Main Page, and then undeleted it to merge the histories."

      Not the best judgment call there by either of those users. As far as I can tell, neither Betacommand or East718 have responded to the messages left for them so far. East was notified as early as 01:32, 4 February 2008. That comment by MZMcBride specifically mentions IRC, and also mentions Nakon (presumably User:Nakon, recently renamed). Was there an IRC discussion and decision to do all this? Also, East718 went silent for two hours after carrying out the deletions, and then made this edit to leave the message: "Something's come up and I won't be editing for a while. Feel free to leave messages." Is it too presumptuous of me to ask what "came up" to prompt that notice? Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for an RFC just to cover a single action; just pointing out a mistake is enough feedback for an isolated incident. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a pattern of bad judgement, or is this an occasional mistake? I don't see evidence of a pattern. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The lack of response worries me. Sometimes there is an attitude that hunkering down for a while is the best way to avoid drama. Sure, things do happen in real life to prompt people to stop editing for a while, but the impression is that sometimes the timing of such interludes is convenient. Until a fuller explanation emerges (and at that point I will be the first to apologise), the impression given is not good. In East's case, probably no pattern. Betacommand's case is more problematic. These were good-faith attempts to protect the encyclopedia, but there needs to be an open admission that they quite simply got this wrong and realise they shouldn't do this in future. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's review the facts. User and Admin collude to do something that they Probably Shouldn't Do. UserBot does garbage edits to a subpage, and Admin moves it to the Main Page, thereby misusing the admin tools. The admin tools were granted on an implicit agreement to not misuse them. Solution: Sternly warn said misuser of tools, and take away UserBot's access since this is the 500th time it's done something that makes the entire community mad at it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who deals with fair use images, even if it is a human, will have people knocking on their door on a constant basis, sometimes in an angry state of mind. This is the first time I noticed the bot do anything very wierd such as this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked User:Graham87 and User:Nakon to comment here, as they made the null edits to the Main Page (still visible in the history). What I want to know is how they were aware of all this and what communications were made to take these actions? I've also asked User:MZMcBride, as he seemed to become aware very early on (he posted to East's talk page at 01:32, and the wiki-tech mailing list post by Gurch was at 01:39). I'll ask Gurch as well how he became aware of all this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  As one of the admins who made a few null edits to the main page, I've been asked to comment here. I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist (and thus Main page) and noticed this edit. I assumed that since the page was deleted earlier, someone was trying to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. I found that the number of edits was lower than the bigdelete threshold and I made a few more to bump up the number. I apologize for any problems I may have caused. Nakon 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that is fairly easy to become aware of – Gurch 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, deletions don't show up in watchlists. Let me be frank. Was there an extended discussion off-wiki (be it mailing lists or IRC) before it was raised on-wiki? If so, why? Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The developers aren't in the habit of hanging around Talk:Main Page or the administrators' noticeboard. However, they do read the mailing list. Since the mass editing was an attempt to use the deletion size limit in a way the developers had presumably not foreseen when they added the limit, I thought they should know about it – Gurch 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  One would think that recent Sandbox deletion would hint at the neccessity to discuss all these "bright" unusual ideas first ∴ AlexSm 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  Gurch has explained in more detail on my talk page. I'm satisfied that the dummy edits are what attracted some people to this - but I'm still unsure how those making the null edits became aware of the deletion and page history merge and the "let's get it above 5000 revisions" plan. I just want to be crystal clear who contributed to these off-wiki discussions before during and after this incident. Ultimately, as Gurch says, it comes back to the judgment of the users in question, but I'm still (like others) worried that people just don't seem to be getting the message. Off-wiki discussions, or those with a limited number of people participating, are inherently risky due to lack of review and lack of transparency. Please, please, please can those using IRC, e-mails or whatever, think next time something like this comes up? Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  You're still trying to put blame on the mode of discussion. Had the handful of users involved discussed this on each other's talk pages before doing it, it still wouldn't have been any better. Conversely, if they had asked for an opinion in the #wikipedia-en channel before doing it, they would have been told not to, by me. And needless to say, if they had asked on the Wikitech-l mailing list, they would have been met with the same threat of desysopping that they have now been met with anyway. Please stop labelling all "off-wiki" discussion as bad and "on-wiki" discussion as good, because that simply isn't the case – Gurch 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  The problem is that those who give advice in closed areas don't get shown up for the purveyors of bad advice that they are. In the Hoffman arbitration case, Moreschi commented in an ANI thread that Hoffman was "obviously a sockpuppet" - that bad advice was in the open for all to see. If that had taken place on IRC, Cuerden would have not had the ANI thread to point to and say "look, I got support for my block", but equally, the giver of bad advice would have remained in the dark. Similarly, here, we just don't know who else gave bad advice. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just a small note: please do not call these null edits, this is very confusing to those familiar with already established terms, see m:Help:Dummy edit: null edits are not even recorded in the page history ∴ AlexSm 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Simply incredible that so many people can make so many poor choices in the span of about 12 hours. Tim laid it all out pretty well. I wasn't able to be on IRC while this was going on, thus my post to East's talk page. Beta did a task for East; Beta's really not all too much to blame -- almost any bot user could've done the exact same thing. Alex is correct in the post above this one -- null edits do not add revisions to the database. What Beta made are called trivial or "dummy" edits. Going forward: (1) All bot discussion should go to WP:BON or WP:BOTREQ. This page is inappropriate for bot discussion; (2) I'm of the opinion that ArbCom and RfC are both unnecessary here; I propose that East (and perhaps Maxim and Ryan) stand for a new RfA in a week (when everyone's called down a bit). Meanwhile, I think that he / they should be barred from using any admin tools. Kudos go to Krimpet and Animum who attempted to reduce the possibility of a Main Page deletion without fucking everything up and causing all this drama. Kudos go to all of the admins who didn't unblock BetacommandBot; if there's one thing this community doesn't need, it's another sysadmin who's particularly pissed with us. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I mentioned User:Nakon and User:Betacommand in my post on East's talk page because they were the ones I could see in the Main Page history and they were the ones that I knew for sure are regularly in the admins channel. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think MZMcBride is referring to this by Krimpet. Animum undeleted the Main Page three minutes after Maxim deleted it. Presumably Maxim had noticed his mistake and was trying to undelete it, but Animum got there first. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When referencing Krimpet and Animum, I was referring to their edits to the global CSS files. On a side note, I completely agree with Gurch that it makes no difference whether this conversation between East and Beta occurred on-wiki or off-wiki. Had I been able to get on IRC last night, I would have immediately told them what a stupid and ill-thought-through idea it was to add null edits to the Main Page. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They didn't talk about it on IRC either. Well, they might have done in a private message, but not in any of the channels – Gurch 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one just checked out the history after the Main Page deletion to see if anything happened in the hour or so since its undeletion. I found BCBot's edits and decided to try the final push to 5,000 edits. Graham87 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And that is one of the most ironic things about the whole incident. It seems that even after doing all this, they miscounted or something, and the bot hadn't done enough edits! I mean, really, getting the number of edits right isn't that difficult is it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have skimmed through all of the comments above, but I don't see where this has been addressed. Where was Betacommandbot authorized to do these edits? The bot should have gone through bot review to do any other tasks than what it has already been approved for. If Betacommand is adding new features to his bot without approval, he should stop, now. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the subsection titled "Bot tasks" there is something about how editing user subpages is an exception. Of course, if Betacommand knew that these edits were going to be moved to the page history of the Main Page (as it seems he did), then this whole excuse disintegrates like a mass of soggy tissue paper. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made an extended comment on this situation in a user subpage. — Werdna talk 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What next?

It has been almost 24 hours since the deletion and page history merges by East718 took place. The following is an attempt to refocus the discussion again and see if anything remains to be done before moving on.

• (1) BetacommandBot remains blocked (it is a week-long block that started at some point on 4 February 2008). Betacommand has asked above if anyone will speak to Tim Starling for him, and failing that, would be happy for the community to review the block. At the moment, it seems no-one is willing to unblock, though maybe someone will put forward a good reason for unblocking. One question is whether the block is causing problems - are Betacommandbot's other functions being carried out? See also the questions below that I've posted to the WP:BAG talk page.
• (2) East718's actions - it seems that nothing much more can be done until East718 returns and responds to the concerns raised above and elsewhere. What is the normal procedure in situations like this? Leave a note on their talk page summarising what has been discussed and pointing them to somewhere (back here?) where they can respond to the concerns? How long should should someone be given to respond?
• (3) Bot actions and issues - as was pointed out above, this needs to be discussed at the various bot pages, such as WP:BAG. Betacommand is a member of BAG (the bot approvals group). I've posted the following questions over there: (a) Did this bot action need approval? (b) What are the views of WP:BAG on the block of User:BetacommandBot? (c) How can the issue of too many functions being tied up in one bot be addressed?
• (4) The Bugzilla discussion about Main Page deletion hacks, patches and whatnot. Anyone want to summarise that? Not sure what more can be done with that other than to note the outcome somewhere if it is relevant. Most of the technical stuff seems to have been sorted or is being discussed elsewhere.
• (5) Other issues - auditing of bots (cleaning up existing records) and dealing with BetacommandBot's tasks, if needed. Again, all bot stuff. Can these issues be safely turfed over to WP:BAG and similar venues to deal with?

In summary, I think the remaining admin issues are (and we should really concentrate on these issues and not be distracted by the other ones):

• (I) The block of BetacommandBot (let it run out, or lift it early based on what Betacommand has said?).
• (II) The actions of East718 (were the following acceptable: the decision to do this, the discussion of the actions, the actions themselves, and the response afterwards). We can review the first three. The last one (the response afterwards) is not fully known yet, and will need East718 to make an on-wiki response.

Apologies if anyone feels I'm prolonging this thread. I think stuff is slowly being directed off to the correct venues to be discussed, and hopefully the above will help focus on stuff relevant to this noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hey, everyone. Leave for a day and look what gets stirred up. :O First off, I'd like to apologize for any disruption caused; I hope you all recognize that this was one of those things meant with the best intentions that went completely off the rails. It was a good-faith effort to lock down the main page which was messed with twice just yesterday, once by a compromised account and another time as a joke gone wrong. It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this, but I've always been of a mind to just get things done. In the end, it's been rather harmless as the history is now cleaned up and a permanent solution is in place. I'm not going to put up a fight if anybody wishes me to be sanctioned in some manner, but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while due to unrelated reasons.

BCBot should probably be unblocked, since Betacommand wasn't aware of what I was doing - I made an open-ended request for a bot account in #-admins and he just happened to be the first person to respond. It was my mistake for passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account.

One last bit of housekeeping: it's a very poorly kept secret that I run a bunch of unapproved adminbots that perform repetitive tasks so other admins can worry about more pressing matters. The most important of these is a bot that hunts down and reverts/deletes XRumer (aka /w or index.php) spam in real time, and blocks spam-only accounts and IPs if the spambot is running from a zombie proxy. Around 30 or so spambots are stopped daily with 10% or so being open proxies or compromised computers. Obviously I've taken it down already but can pass it on to any other admin willing to run it, just email me. east.718 at 03:15, February 5, 2008

Hi East. Thanks for the apology and for explaining what happened. Hopefully you will be around for long enough to reply to this, but if not, then I guess it will have to wait until you get back.

• "It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this" - can we have assurances that you won't act unilaterally like this again?
• "I've always been of a mind to just get things done" - in future, will you discuss things like this before doing them? There is boldness and then there is recklessness. No harm done this time, but what about next time?
• "but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while" - the question is whether you will repeat the misjudgments made this time round, so this thread will be useful in determining that - sure, it can wait until you get back, but the attitude that going away for a long time means that the possibility of sanctions (even if it is only a thread like this with lots of criticism of your judgment) should be discounted, is, well, rather strange.

Then there are the three points I raised above:

• (1) discussion of the actions - did you in fact discuss this with anyone? I thought you had discussed it with Betacommand, but it seems now that you didn't.
• (2) the actions themselves - I think it is clear now what you did - can we have assurances that you won't add dummy edits like this in future, or do page merges like this in future, without discussing it first? Especially given that Tim Starling has said he will block anyone who does this?
• (3) the response afterwards - if you do do something unilaterally in future (boldness is sometimes good), can we have reassurances that you will make every attempt to be around in the aftermath? The notice you put up two hours later saying that something had come up is fair enough - but can you tell us what happened in those two hours? Did you see the talk page messages people had left you? Did you get lots of people asking you what had happened, and did you respond to them? Off-wiki response are all very well, but the on-wiki records just shows silence, a notice after two hours, and then this response. If you are not going to be around to deal with the follow-up to something, discuss (on-wiki) with others and maybe let someone deal with it - there was no urgency here.

I'll let others respond to the other points, and I'll respond to the Betacommand bit in the section Ral315 started. I appreciate the image work you do, East, so I hope things do work out. If I'm happy with the above points, I won't be taking things any further, and I would hope no-one else would either. Have a nice wikibreak! Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of tolerance for good faith screwups, for the simple reason that, if they're truly good faith, they're unlikely to be repeated (unless the user in question is demonstrably incorrigible, which East isn't). I say we leave things were they now sit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How difficult is it for East718 (when he gets back) to take the time to answer the above? Ideally, East718 won't be the only one to learn how not to do things. Others watching this will learn what not to do in more general terms - ie. discuss first, really think about the consequences of the actions, and stay around to deal with them. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that I was satisfied with the response, not that further questions to East were inappropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking BetacommandBot?

Given that Tim's willing to let the community handle whether Betacommand should unblock, I'm wondering whether BetacommandBot should be unblocked. Clearly this was a lapse of judgment. And this isn't the first lapse in judgment that Betacommand's made. But I think that, with no permanent harm done, and Betacommand promising not to do this again, there's no reason to make him sit the block out.

This unblock would be with the understanding, of course, that he not run bots like these without prior approval from the BAG. I'm personally willing to do this, so long as it isn't controversial; any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot owners are responsible for the actions of their bots. The edits were a waste of system resources and should not have been made. I hold Tim in very high esteem, and I imagine many other admins do as well. It is pretty rare that a sysadmin steps in to a situation like this and takes action; it's even more rare that revisions are then deleted from the database. Things like that generally indicate quite an error on someone's part. A week is not a very long time, and I hope this block gives people time to appreciate the work that BetacommandBot does for the community and perhaps other bot owners can write similar bots in the event that Beta someday decides to no longer be as active as he is. BetacommandBot can be out of commission for a week -- we'll live. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MZMcBride. Let's see how things pan out for a week. I understand the argument that East718 was also responsible, but before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned. For one thing, I wouldn't be happy to see BetacommandBot unblocked until Betacommand explains the following from East718 (see above): "passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account" Beta, did you really run unvetted code on that account? How much did you know of what East718 was trying to do? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just above, you state (and, I agree), that in this instance, no real harm was done. I find it REALLY hard to believe that Betacommand didn't know at least what the bot did, and, I can reasonably understand why it might have been thought to be a good idea (a good enough idea, to protect the main page from deletion, that Tim tweaked the main page to be not be deletable himself!). They were just trying to protect the project. I'm not sure, what the point of punishing keeping BCBot blocked for a week at this time, exactly is. SQL^{Query me!} 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: "before any unblocking, Betacommand needs to state clearly and unequivocally what lessons he has learned" I normally disagree with this "make them show they know what they have done wrong" approach, but then that approach is too often applied to new editors who can't be expected to know all the site standards. Betacommand should know by now what is and isn't acceptable - what will and won't create drama. Plus the question that East718's response has thrown up (the "unvetted code" bit) - either Betacommand knew what the bot request was for (and thus shares responsibility for thinking it should happen without discussion) or he ran the bot request without really thinking about what it was for - not suitable behaviour for someone who is now back on the bot approvals group and is trusted with helping to approve or deny other bot requests. I would prefer that Betacommand actually steps up to the plate and addresses these issues (and gets his bot unblocked early), rather than him just staying quiet and waiting for the block to expire. I agree that this block is not the right point to talk about splitting up BCBot - but that discussion shouldn't be deferred much longer (BC needs to lay out a clear timetable by when he intends to get this done - and there needs to be checks to prevent over-reliance on single bots, or any bots). Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Until BCB is split up into multiple bots (a completely reasonable request that has been made multiple times in the past) I see no reason it should be unblocked. Opening the source would be good too. Haukur (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While that's a fair point, and one perhaps Betacommand should do, I don't think it's fair to hold a block over Betacommand's head over something as trivial as that. Nevertheless, I see the points made above as well. Ral315 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I strongly oppose holding BCBot's block over his head, to get what you want. If you believe that every bot should be forced to have separate accounts (and, be open source), per task, then, please get consensus and modify the bot policy. SQL^{Query me!} 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BetacommandBot might emphasize some necessary changes to the Bot policy, but BetacommandBot's case must be considered as an independant thing, no matter what. NicDumZ ~ 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested any broad policy changes - I just want Betacommand to split his bot. With any reasonable code design this would be an easy task. Haukur (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was saying, that, if you want bot owners to be required to run separate tasks, under separate accounts, this isn't the time, nor the place. Until then, there really isn't any requirement, for BCBot to do so. SQL^{Query me!} 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of an early unblocking; Betacommand has not been blocked, his bot has. If he cannot run his bot within the agreed limits, it should stay blocked. An early unblocking merely confirms to Betacommand that he can pretty much do what he likes with his bot. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has a long history of problems, especially bugs and unauthorised actions. Do not unblock it. I suggest we ban it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.44 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely do not unblock BetacommandBot. You don't keep giving the car keys to the kid who keeps driving off of Deadman's Curve. This whole latest hullabaloo happened precisely because of a failure to stop and think. Had this issue been calmly deliberated on-wiki, it would have quickly become obvious that it was a hideously stupid idea from the get-go. Instead, it was dashed off as a "hey, let's try this!" idea on IRC, and quickly implemented, to the project's detriment. I think that making BetacommandBot cool its heels for a week (or more) is clearly necessary in order to prevent this sort of slapdash irresponsibility in the future. Nandesuka (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka puts it better then I did. Apropos of very little, this is the 36th block to be issued to BetacommandBot, for various reasons including misuse, continuing to work outside trial periods, general bugginess, and so on. Most of them get undone early because Betacommand always promises he's learnt his lesson and won't screw up again. How many more chances will this bot get? Surely we could find a user or a group of users more suitable, civil, and with the capacity to learn from their mistakes to run bots that cover the tasks BetacommandBot does, split by task and with open code to allow for collaborative improvement. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neıl, you fail to note that 90% of those blocks are groundless and quickly reverted. I also take offense to your attacks against me. Ive personly done over 60,000 contributions to this project, and BCBot has ~800,000 edits. yes there will be mistakes, errors and bugs with that number of edits. In this case I did one act to protect the encyclopedia people completely fail to assume good faith with me. I now know why so many good users are leaving the project in droves, on average we loose an admin ever two days. we seem to want to hang every good user for the slightest mistake. it seems that now users like creating drama, and banning users. it almost seems that the current consensus is to have be banned and sent to hell. β^_command 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As Haukurth says, "90% were groundless" was patently untrue. The fact many were quickly reverted is because you have already been extended a lot of good faith and many admins have been willing to unblock the bot because you promised it would work from now on. But it's clearly not working, as there's at least 16 blocks that are valid (even if they were undone before expiration). "People completely fail to assume good faith with you" - does this mean you don't even understand why what you did was wrong? Neıl ☎ 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

lucasbfr's count below has it that 50% of the blocks are valid. That's still a lot of blocks. A bigger problem is that you react with this same indignant attitude every time you've made a mistake and been criticized for it. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Haukur, Ive admited that I fucked up, I was acting in what I though was the betterment of wikipedia. Im sorry if I get a little irratated when people miss-quote facts and attack me for making good faith efforts to help. it seems that people ignore all the good that I do and they just attack me and call for my head on platter. or that I get banned β^_command 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, from a COOP perspective, I'm a little worried on how reliant elements of wikipedia seems to on the BCbot performing rountine tasks and how little redundancy we have. As a matter of urgency, we need to work towards developing bots that are under the control of the community (by that, I mean the community has access to the code via some mechanism - so that if the owner leaves or falls under a bus we have a fallback position). I agree entirely with Neil's other comments. Is there a working group or other "body" who could take a lead here? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, WP:BAG. But that nearly got shut down by the community at one point. One idea would be to get developers more involved. See User:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion:

"It is my suggestion that the development and systems administration team should play an integral role in the administration of a successful bot system. While the community of the English Wikipedia should be tasked with determining whether the purpose of a bot is sound, it is the general Wikimedia technical community which must evaluate a proposed bot, feature, or other technically-sensitive change for its impact upon performance, and on whether it is better achieved with, for instance, extensions and modifications to MediaWiki." - User:Werdna

This would also help build bridges between the community and developers. I really think this is a great idea, and should be followed up as far as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it's a good idea in theory, but it's bad in practice, simply because the developer squad is already spread thin and overworked. If they were interested, yes, that would be great, but I really doubt that is the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why can't Betacommand spend the week-long block tidying up his code, running it on test wikis, and preparing for this splitting of tasks and opening up of the code that he seems to be on the verge of doing? We can't force him to do this, but we can politely suggest that he do this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be lovely if BC were prepared to do that. I'm pretty sure he has been asked politely to consider this ona number of occasions and refused to do so. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, last time I counted (out of 27 blocks) I counted 11 valid blocks and 10 out of process. I guess that 50% of blocks on the bot are still rubbish. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

16 valid blocks (plus at least 4 valid ones on User:Betacommand for malfunctioning automated scripts, running the bot on the main account, bot-spamming RFCU, automated deletion etc) makes 20. Even with a number of blocks being "out of process", 20 valid blocks suggetss there's something to be resolved. Splitting the bot tasks would be an excellent start. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep blocked until functions are atomized. Folks keep saying that we shouldn't keep it blocked because no permanent harm was done. That's an insane standard that we would never apply to an editor. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate this, but I believe the bot should stay blocked. I've tried to be open minded, but I've seen, over the past year, too many mistakes coming from Betacommand and I simply don't trust his judgment with the Bot, unfortunately. I tried - really tried - to wipe the slate clean after the fiasco of a year ago, and I had almost rebuild my trust in Betacommand and then he went and did this. I'm sorry, in my opinion, the bot should remain blocked for the full duration. I also strongly suggest that the BAG get involved in this and codify whether or not bots should be allowed to run unapproved tasks in userspace. By the way, given that the task was run in userspace with the sole purpose of then having it impact on main-space, I am horribly disappointed in Betacommand's reasoning that "since it's in userspace" it was okay. - Philippe | Talk 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if BCB's edits were not so crucial as they are, his block should remain. I believe that until we can get his tasks split up between trustworthy users, he should remain unblocked, but merely to do work that is extremely difficult and/or tedious by hand. When this is finished, he should be blocked. I barely even edit Wikipedia much anymore, but I still know of the infamous qualities of BCB. I don't mean to slam on its master, Betacommand, because his edits have been very helpful. Unfortunately, I must agree that these crucial tasks must be handed over to someone who will not make such errors in judgement. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 04:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Rich, how do propose the above concerns should be addressed? A warning to Betacommand not to run new bot requests or code without getting them approved first? You do realise that is what he did, right? And that Tim's block was after the bot had ceased its "system resources abuse", and was probably to prevent future abuses of system resources? How can this be prevented in the future? Has Betacommand said clearly what he has learnt from this? If you are going to unblock after a long discussion like the one above, I think you should say a bit more than just:

• Tim's talk page: "BetacommandBot. Hi Tim, just to let you know I'm unblocking this account as the system resource issue is no longer. Rgds" (10:52)
• Unblock log: "System resource issue no longer an isue - bot not doing that" (10:53)
• Betacommand's talk page: "Bot unblocked. Effective now. Verb sap. etc." (10:56)
• In this thread: "Unblocked BCB, left note for Tim." (11:07)

Otherwise it seems that you are ignoring the above concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As the unblocking means that no further admin action is required, it seems that this discussion will have to move to a requests for comments, which I was hoping to avoid. If Betacommand is more responsive to the questions above, then maybe this can be avoided. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the block served no further purpose. BCB isn't going to do "something silly" in the next six days, so we need to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face, here. What BCB did in this case was well intentioned, and could have been done without breaking any "rules" in a dozen different ways. The question of user behaviour can be taken up with Betacommand on his talk page, or RFC if appropriate, of changes to bot processes or standards on the appropriate discussion pages. This particular incident is, it seems to me, only important as part of a pattern of behaviour, which if seen as a problem, should not be addressed by temporary block. Rich Farmbrough, 12:24 6 February 2008 (GMT).

I have raised the bot issues at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Bot issues at WP:AN thread, but there has been no response so far. If you feel this was meant as a temporary block to prevent abuse of system resources, an abuse that is indeed no longer occurring, why not ask Tim that first? My reading of it is that you are wrong, and that the block was aimed to be left in place until Tim or the community (not just you) were satisfied that Betacommand had responded adequately to the concerns raised. Neither East718 nor Betacommand have indictated what they discussed, who they discussed it with, and why they failed to discuss it with anyone. Just saying "I fucked up" is not answering those questions. I will copy my comments above over to Betacommand's talk page. The level of responsiveness is a concern, and is a constant refrain. It shouldn't have to take all this to get Betacommand to respond to concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what, Rich? You unblocked? There are clearly concerns, that is not a consensus action. I'm not sure that's the route I'd have taken. - Philippe | Talk 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the unblock than the poor response by Betacommand so far. He has said he is sorry for causing drama and doesn't intend to repeat this action. No apology for the failure to discuss. TO make it easier for him to respond, I've laid out my concerns at his talk page. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And Betacommand has responded there. As I said 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&diff=189504559&oldid=189501494 here], I'm satisfied now those answers have been given, and am happy for this AN thread to be archived (though others may want to continue). Some issues remain for WP:BAG to discuss, and for East to respond to when he returns. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

source code?

An important issue that is central to this is that of the source code. My understanding is that it is currently closed? I see a number of requests on here for BC to open it to the community (or at the least "approved" members of the community?) Can we get a yea or nay on that request? If it's a nay - that's fine and I have no issue with that but the community needs to know so that we can start developing bots to perform those important but routine tasks and are under the control of the community rather than single editors. This is no slight on the good work that the bot had performed to date but rather a pragmatic way forward and an attempt to insure that the best needs of the community and project are served. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I was about to post above, I do release my code to a very very limited number of trusted users. one I dont like clones of BCBot floating about that I cannot control. the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute). I dont make my code idiot proof. I build it so that I can use it without a lot of hassel. Also I dont have the time to review code changes made by other to my code. As for splitting the bot into several accounts Ive been working on that. I have also been doing other requests (Wikipedia:Image renaming) changing several thousand lines of code spread accross multiple files just takes time. with RW commitments I need 30 hours a day, and as we all know there are only 26 hours in a day. β^_command 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"the code is very powerful (Ive clocked it at 700 edits a minute)". Come on. Editing a page is pretty simple, code-wise, and there are vast quantities of free code available. I have very strong doubts that any code can be any more "powerful" than other code at making edits. And even if your code has some magic that makes it ten times faster than everybody else's, accounts that are not autoconfirmed can make only 8 edits per minute, and other accounts tend to have internet connection latency and speed as a much greater limiting factor than how "powerful" the code is. — Werdna talk 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation to this end at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Code publishing.3F yesterday and the response has been lukewarm at best. My feeling is that bot operators don't want to release code

1) To keep control of it tightly, and have it be "theirs". I.e., no clones.

2) Arguments that the bot codes are "sensitive".

3) Operators not wanting to have to clean up their code.

4) Bot operators not wanting to be responsible for others using their code.

The only way to force release would probably be if the community (not the BAG) ordered that all code be published to get authorized to run new bots. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand all of those feels but the community really needs to achieve a better balance between considering the feelings of the people creating the bots and ensuring that we have sufficient control to ensure Continuity of operations/development if a developer goes under a bus. I think retroactively asking for all code to be released can be a problem but certainly there must be scoop for improving the situation with future approvals? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the crats actually oversee the BOT process, but have delegated the review part to the WP:BAG, so if the crats said as a group "no new bots/bot tasks may run unless the code is released via X means" that would solve this debate IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats only give out the bot flag. They don't say whether automated scripts are permitted to run to begin with. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All of those reasons are standard and patently wrong-headed objections to open source.

1. Possessiveness is not an acceptable excuse for anything on Wikipedia. You can choose to participate or not, but if you choose to, in certain respects you need to forfeit all possessiveness for the good of the project. That already applies to edits' copyright and there's no sound policy reason it should not be applied to bots as well.
2. No bot code is sensitive. Any idiot can already hack up a ten-line Perl script to spam as many edits as he pleases, once he creates an account and figures out how to calculate a valid edit token. And anyone willing to look at the source code of an anti-vandal bot to figure out how to more effectively vandalize would evade the bot somehow in any case, it's not very hard.
3. Nobody says you have to clean up your code, you just have to release it, and provide just enough documentation that others can actually get the thing running. If it's an ungodly mess, that's not great, but people can still run it if you disappear ― at the very least, until someone can write up a replacement.
4. Every bot will still have to be registered and approved, and it's the operator who's responsible for what the bot does, not the author. If someone wants to run a bot whose source code they don't remotely understand, they should probably be denied the right to do so without fairly good reason.

I think that, in retrospect, it was always a bad idea to have the BAG consist of bot operators. It would be better for it to consist of programmers who can understand the issues involved but don't actually run any bots. There's too much conflict of interest right now, and as a result, too much self-indulgence, IMO. Bot authors and operators provide invaluable services to the community, but that doesn't mean they should be given any right to operate against the project's principles or its interest. Better people get by with manual methods all along than rely on a closed-source bot that may suddenly disappear one day. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a bold suggestion: Treat all (bot) source code in a similar way that we treat articles. Let everybody be able to edit the code: Create new tasks, improve any code, debug, etc. Vandalism is dealt with similar to main space vandalism. Unwanted tasks (not compatible with policy) will be deleted. Good-faith-errors will be corrected. Disputes solved by trying to reach consensus. (Utopia or straighforward?) If we require all bot runs to be revertible (similar to ordinary edits – when the developers come up with a robust rollback function), then running a bot is not such a big deal. Oceanh (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

That would be a HUGE security risk, in my opinion. SQL^{Query me!} 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Very bad idea. It would only take a change to one line of OrphanBot's code and it would start replacing unsourced images with penis pictures. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed very bad. A few lines changed in ClueBot could either completely disable it or make it revert *everything*. Furthermore, one character in ClueBot's source could make it negate the heuristics and thus revert only good edits but not bad edits. Also, the huge security risk to the servers that run these bots ... Most of these bots are written in very powerful languages. Languages that are capable of lots of stuff outside of Wikipedia. Languages that could run DDoS code ... Languages that could forkbomb the server running them. You know the limit of 100 ifexist calls per page? A forkbomb could (and indeed would, if coded properly) use billions of more resources than an ifexist call. As the bots' password has to be stored on the server somewhere, readable by the bot, what keeps someone from writing a piece of code to read the password and post it to a Wikipedia page? What about the ability to run any command on the server the bot is running on under the user running the bot (often the same user account that the bot owner uses). We know that bots can go at very high speeds, now what if someone were to compromise 5 or 10 bots? Someone could very easily vandalize a lot of Wikipedia before someone could block the bots. Suppose 10 bots at 10 edits per second (this is possible with forking and such), and it took 1 minute to block all 10 bots, in that short time, the bots would have vandalized 6,000 pages. Now, let's assume that it took a bit longer to block them and it took 5 minutes, the bots would have vandalized 30,000 articles. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I don't think anyone was suggesting that the live code be made publically editable without review. — Werdna talk 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the idea of a trusted repository like OTRS? They maintain copyright permissions and secure user communications. As part of the bot approvals process, each bot task could be issued an OTRS ticket number verifying that a copy of the code has been given. Then, if something like BCB's block or Gurch's travel happened, an OTRS rep could issue the code to a new, vetted bot operator (probably an existing operator) who would at least have that far a head start on coding a replacement (if not being able to implement the bot automatically).

As a followup, some bot ops have released their code and there are somewhat useful (to a programmer) documentations on how to code in specific languages used on wikis. What is to prevent someone from coding their own bot, setting up several sleeper-socks, and doing the same thing you suggest? Using rotating names and proxies, a concentrated attacked, like what happened to GRC.com several years ago is probably just as possible with or without bot code published.

Certainly, somebody could do something like that if they had the time, motivation and resources. But somebody that motivated is not going to be stopped by a lack of available bot code. I mean, there are countless wiki editing modules available on CPAN, and it's not exactly difficult to write one. I think it took me an hour or two. — Werdna talk 07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact ClueBot has had its source open since its inception, and I haven't seen any vandals who have been trying to get around ClueBot.  :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"

so isn't there already a risk of someone switching the heuristics or forkbombing (assuming that part of the code is released) and re-running it on their own system to attack your server or wikipedia? MBisanz ^talk 07:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No more risk than there is of somebody picking up pywikipedia and sending through some mass-changes of replacing images with something offensive. It is my opinion that the place of anti-vandalism bots is to revert unsophisticated vandalism by bored schoolkids — bored schoolkids who are, on the whole, unwilling and/or unable to look up the source code of particular antivandalism bots and to figure out how to get around them. — Werdna talk 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, forkbombing is an attack against the server executing the source code, not against a remote server like Wikipedia. And, no, ClueBot doesn't have any fork bomb code in it. Anyone technically savvy could easily create a bot (or use a heavily modified version of any open source bot) and run it on their own computer. That isn't the reason it is a bad idea. The reason it is a bad idea is that most people aren't going to take the time to do that, but if they could insert a single '!' into User:ClueBot/Source to make it negate its heuristics, that is a different matter entirely. Furthermore, the major bots on Wikipedia are trusted when you see them make an edit. How many times have you checked MiszaBot III's edit to see if it actually just archived stuff without changing anything else? -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked Misza's a grand total of once, when I set up an archiver for another user and screwed up the date coding and had to go and undo Misza's move to correct my error. And I'm not saying code should be editable, but right now someone with the proper knowledge could take User:ClueBot/Source, copy it to a non-protected page, insert the !, and do damage across many sleeper accounts. On the other hand, requiring all code to go to OTRS for storage, would solve the problem of disappearing bot ops, compromised bots (we've had compromised admins), and maybe even eliminate the need for bot ops to feel some duty to publish their code. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what you're saying there. Putting the code in a non-protected page and editing it doesn't magically make it run (try it!). You need a server, you need several accounts, you need decent bandwidth, you need the appropriate software installed on your server. Developing and operating a vandalbot is certainly not a particularly easy task. The easiest part is figuring out how to edit Wikipedia from a script. — Werdna talk 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, they couldn't. They would have to have access to a Linux machine, a PHP CLI interpreter, a working knowledge of PHP, cURL, MySQL, and a ton of other prerequisites. That page is solely for reference, that page has no special status. As a matter of fact, you can edit it now. It won't change a thing, believe me, many have tried. You would have to copy the source into the correct files, create a proper directory structure, MySQL schema, and create a config file for it from reading the source and figuring out which variables need setting. They would then have to create User:TheirBotName/Run and set it equal to true, otherwise the bot wouldn't run. Then they would have to actually start the bot and after the bot did some sanity checks and read some wiki pages, then it would need to connect both to Freenode and to the IRC feed. After it did that, it would attempt to login as the user defined in the config file, then and only then would it start doing what it is supposed to do (with any changes the malicious user decided to make). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec2)No, I get that I can't run a bot by magically entering a script. What I mean is that if Cobi's fear is that a user will edit 1 character of his code, so he puts it on a protected page, {or doesn't I see now), along comes a vandal programer, and now that code is in an area that it can be copied to an editable area (I said page, but compiler, text file, etc would also do), then a vandal could copy it, change the code, compile it, run it on their server, and do all sorts of damage. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the strictest sites about using only freely licensed images and other media. If we are so strict on images that appear on the main page, why, no, how can we not look at the code that a bot runs to make edits to thousands of articles? How can we allow this code to be proprietary, when the rest of the site is free? If featured articles require sources, multiple editors, etc. How can we allow bots to just be approved by a committee and ran? Does the community as a whole get a say in this? I firmly believe that bots on Wikipedia must be open source, that all editors on Wikipedia can view and comment on. Though you may realize that there are a million reasons that this "would never work", everyone here realizes that this has to happen. Something like this fiasco cannot happen again. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This current episode happened because an admin and a bot operator did not communicate with developers and larger community – licensing of the code has little relevance. Bear in mind also that the key role of BAG is not really vetting the code, it's vetting the operators. There are examples of people picking up some code, and wanting to run it without understanding how it works (just browse the rejected bot requests). I don't believe the community on the whole is geeky enough to be trusted with this role, as one must know something about the subject to be able to act as a judge. Turning bot requests over the community would simply turn it into a popularity contest, a bit like RfA. Most of the people who know enough of programming and are interested in bots have already gravitated towards BAG. – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's not really the issue from an organisational point of view, the issue is that we are becoming highly reliant on closed sourced bots and their owners to perform many routine or important tasks. If that editor falls under a bus or goes rogue, then we don't currently have any redundancy in place. Yes - those things can be done manually, yes someone could write a replacement bot - but it's still a waste of time and resources when we can develop processes that minimise disruption from the start by bring bots more tightly under the control of the community. Hell we don't even have to do anything with the sourcecode, just log it somewhere (which does not have to be publically available). If you want to register a bot, you turn over the source code and you agree that in the effect of your incapacity that someone else can manage/develop it. I have a bit of a background in organisational resilience and this stuff seems like a non-brainer to me. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively over on the Bot pages. Two more useful things (than open source per se) would be if each significant task has a number of operators that can perform it, and if rather than being extrinsic, bot functions could be made intrinsic to MediaWiki. Nonetheless this would not stop, nor should it, people using automation in general, without redundancy. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Agreed. Rich, is there a well-organised list of bot functions, the history of who performed them in the past, and who performs them now? If not, shouldn't some effort be made towards carrying out that sort of organisation? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and what is needed is carefully constructed list of important bot functions (i.e. that would be missed). However that's the easy part, the hard part is ensuring that they are all "covered off" by another bot operator - and maintaining the list as operators come and go. Whether BAG would take on this task I don't know, most BAGers seem inordinately busy. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Possible vandal bot

I've read a lot of mistakes in the discussion above, I'd like to try to correct some.

1. A DoS attack using one of the multiple bot frameworks that are available, or one modified bot, is very unlikely to happen. Fork bombs are absolutely off-topic here : That would require several servers running very speedy bots to work, and from my point of vue, there are others types of attacks, way more efficient that could be used to take down the fundation's servers. Modifiying a bot in order to attempt a DoS attack is a waste of time, and that's for sure.
2. The other type of attack that you should worry about would be a simple mass automated edit wave. Not some attempt to take down any server, but simply some characters switching, some page blankings, etc, to alter the content and not the service. And such an attack is VERY EASY to set up actually, without having to modify any particular bot scripts:
   • Pywikipedia only needs : python, an internet connection, and a fresh wikipedia account. Easy.
   • With one of the basic script included in pywikipedia, you can perform automated replacements and customize your edit summary
   • a 10 (Actually, the limit for unconfirmed user is 8) edits per second edit rate can be very, very easily reached with a very slow connection and/or hardware. (And I insist on that : Our bot scripts are using timers around every corner to slow down their processes)
   • Setting up 10 computers to start such an attack at the same time is very easy for an individual.
   • Also some IT students have access to powerful servers that are way more speedy than individual computers: I'm currently sitting at a computer school, which has 4 *huge* servers for its student needs, with a 15Gbps connection : I will not try, but setting up 50 threads to make automated edits from 200 different accounts, using automatically changing edit summaries to make them hard to detect (hum... generated from random google searches ? or, better, from edit summaries from the last XML dump ? ) is EASY STUFF, really.
   • I don't think that there would be any way to easily counter such an attack, and yet I'm not even this experienced on computer attacks. Really, I do think that wikipedia is already vulnerable to such an attack, so please, please, please, stop worrying about a possible attack following the release of the code of an antivandal bot...

Wannabe hackers have more chances to succeed monitoring the latest vulnerabilities, or using a very simple replacement bot.

How many of you, bot owners, 'crats, and admins, are logging in using HTTPS to secure your password ? Really, I think that there are some security issues requiring way more attention that this so-called problem about bot code releases...

NicDumZ ~ 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of your points are true, however, you have lost the context. All of this was in response to someone suggesting that we let the bots' live code be changed by anyone at any time. This opens all sorts of attack venues against the server that the bot's code is running on, including a forkbomb against the server running the bot (while (1) pcntl_fork(); for PHP) or using the bot to download a DoS program to the server running the bot in order for the attacker to add another server to their DDoS botnet. The problem is not releasing the code ... ClueBot's code already is. The problem is letting anyone change the live, running copy of it and having the server running the bot execute the new code. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

66.99.53.142

Hello, I'm one of the admins at 66.99.53.142, it's recently been brought to my attention that our IP address has been blocked on numerous occasions for violations to Wikipedia's editing policy. I was pointed this way by the admin Kbdank71, and I thought I'd ask for your help in finding a way to keep our students from vandalizing your site, or at least pointing me to the articles I need to read to get this corrected. His point of “I would think that if your students are old enough to be editing Wikipedia, they are probably passed the point of the "Vandalism is bad" speech having much effect.” is also unfortunately ringing true as well. Any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Yorktech (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yorktech. Technical options at our end included (a) blocking all editing from the IP address, (b) blocking anonymous editing but allowing students who already have accounts at home to edit from school, (c) continuing to revert vandalism and issue short-term blocks. (There is some vandalism but your school is not even in the top thousand vandal sites, probably.) It looks your school forwards XFF headers and the local IPs you edit from are of the format 10.10.X.X. Certain admins with Checkuser permission can tell you which IPs were used, if you can show you are an authorized representative of the school (Release of this info is covered by the privacy policy). Send an email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org with some real-life contact information so that whomever answers the message can verify your authority in this manner. Thatcher 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers can do that? you learn something new every day i guess. (I didn't think the IPs - let alone the XFF IPs - that individual edits were made from were stored). —Random832 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers know nothing! By the way, that's a really bad haircut, Random. Thatcher 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that is what the "thatch" in your username refers to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can subscribe to an RSS or Atom feed of the talk page, which should receive a warning/notice whenever vandalism is caught. Warnings are often, but not always, issued before blocks, and blocks are usually followed with a notice. The contributions page for the IP address will let you see every specific edit made by editors that are not logged in. The IP address can also be blocked because a logged in editor was just using it and got blocked with the relevant option selected, or is already blocked and tries to log in while using the IP. I'm not aware of helpful ways of tracking that back other than trying to log in and reading the message explaining the autoblock reason. It will contain text of the form "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "username". The reason given for username's block is: "reason". That will identify the user and the reason - but you'll have to look at their contributions for more data. GRBerry 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent the e-mail and added the rss feed. As you can tell, since the time of the previous post, someone from this site struck again. I'm beginning to wonder if the only reason we don't vandalize more is the fact that we're generally on blocked status. Thanks for your help in this. Yorktech (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh and WP:NOT#MYSPACE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – everyone seems to agree that there is nothing to this--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some sociology professor at the University of Pittsburgh has mistaken Wikipedia for a social-networking site: a couple of dozen UofP students having created user pages almost simultaneously on January 16, citing a class they're taking [14]. No edits I can see except to the pages themselves.

• Sbabones (talk · contribs) - the professor
• Piotrusbot (talk · contribs) - his TA
• Ajj7 (talk · contribs)
• Allsoppmh (talk · contribs)
• Alp38 (talk · contribs)
• Alv20 (talk · contribs)
• Amarritz (talk · contribs)
• Ark20 (talk · contribs)
• Heacox204 (talk · contribs)
• Heathergorman1 (talk · contribs)
• Hrsalgat5 (talk · contribs)
• Jlk44 (talk · contribs)
• Kec45 (talk · contribs)
• LMW40 (talk · contribs)
• Mokes123 (talk · contribs)
• Nikkay123 (talk · contribs)
• Rsh10 (talk · contribs)
• Sar46 (talk · contribs)
• Skm26 (talk · contribs)

--Calton | Talk 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the professor's talk page, it looks like User:Piotrus was working with the prof fairly close to the start of the project. One of the students has gone on to make some constructive edits outside userspace. Beyond that, not sure what to do with the rest except maybe encourage them to edit articles. (and maybe suggest to the prof that teaching to edit in articlespace would be useful.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If he just wants to teach them about Wiki software, he should install his own. --Masamage ♫ 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

support collaborative group research on deindustrialization in Pittsburgh neighborhoods. - sounds like the sort of class assignment we should be encouraging and working with - if the output is the improvement of our coverage of a specialist area. I say at this stage, we a) monitor and b) providing encouraging welcomes and guidance on editing. A bit of good will on both sides and everyone could be a winner. At the worst, we wait a couple of weeks to see what's happening and if it's purely social networking, then we explain to the editors why we would be deleting their pages. comments? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the radical step of asking him to clarify what's up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the userpages state the following: "We are using Wikipedia as part of collecting data for our final research topics." This is by no means a social networking attempt by them. They are writing essays on various topics for their Sociology classes it appears. Their productive edits and their time here should be encouraged. — Save_Us † 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, encouraging accademic use of Wikipedia in this way should be ENCOURAGED. While the first few days of set up of a project like this may involve little article work, and lots of early edits will be largely user-talk related edits, this looks like a valid project, and should be at least left alone, if not actively encouraged and helped along by admins. Let it be! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The TA, a Wikipedia admin, has responded here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the purpose of the project is content generation. The first step was to to teach students how to edit a wiki and creation of userpages looked like a good way to do it. You have a good point that I will stress in the future courses - Wikipedia is not a social network and it's userpages should not be used as such; however they have not been, as far as I know? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In future, would this sort of project better fit within Wikiversity's mandate? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd depend on what the project actually is - learning the technical stuff sounds like it was just a first step, let's back off and see what kind of content they end up creating. —Random832 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Lucas (porn star)

I am advising of a serious matter concerning multiple issues which requires administrative intervention.

Michael Lucas or somebody claiming to be him posted a statement on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his having been a prostitute, [15], a reference which has stood for over a year. Editor David Shankbone replied there specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes", [16]. Prior to this, Shankbone three times restored the prostitute reference when it had been deleted by the now-banned editor Lucasent, [17], [18], [19]. Shankbone has admitted to having corresponded with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Subsequently, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort", [20].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,
(2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,
(3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

There is a discussion thread on this matter, rapidly closed, at COIN, [21]. The participants are LGBT-related editors who work in concert and coordinate support for LGBT-related articles. In particular, editor Benjiboi who himself previously restored the prostitute reference after Lucasent deleted it, [22], now says it "isn't central or notable to his bio", [23]. Why restore it in the first place if it wasn't central or notable? As noted above, Shankbone restored the prostitute reference three times, and Benjiboi once. Another LGBT editor, Jeffpw, not involved in this thread, also restored the prostitute reference thrice after deletion by Lucasent, [24], [25], [26], calling it "sourced material." The prostitute reference had been restored a total of seven times by three editors. The prostitute reference remained until Lucas expressed dissatisfaction -- then Shankbone reversed and contradicted himself, removed it and substituted the term escort. Escort is not interchangeable with prostitute. The cited source says Lucas worked in prostitution -- nowhere does it say escorting. Other reliable sources listed above say Lucas was a prostitute.

This article has been a COI, POV, OR, and BLP nightmare almost since its inception. A review of its history and previous COI [27] and its archive [28] reveals how Lucas has worked through others to edit the article to his liking, i.e., to whitewash and sanitize it. Now Shankbone is editing for him (calling him an escort instead of prostitute) and other LGBT editors rally to support it. Shankbone is a significant contributor to the Wiki world, but he is as subject to the rules as any of us. I am bringing this matter here so that neutral admins can take appropriate action. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.10.239 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong room. dispute resolution is three doors down on the left. If you bring this up there, someone will gladly help you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*wonders how you bring something up on a policy page* :) – Gurch 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One could, perhaps, go in there, look at the dozen or so options, and choose one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

one of which is here :D – Gurch 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Jay is saying is that this situation is not an urgent one and thus should use a different option listed on said policy page. Of course, Gurch, feel free to deal with it, if you like. :D Lara❤Love 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You might get further eyes at WP:BLPN. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I already directed this IP editor to BLPN when he/she posted to WP:COIN. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Series of image copyvios by User:Mangwanani

Hello, when one looks at the upload log of User:Mangwanani, one notices there seem to be numerous copyright violations where he has simply tagged the image as {{PD-self}}. The problem seems to stem not from bad faith or lies, but from the fact that he believes that because he retrieved the image from internet or scanned it, he can tag it thus. Examples:

• Image:Map of Harare.gif http://www.propertylink.co.zw/map.cfm
• Image:Simba Makoni.jpg Looks like it's from a press shot (low res, professional quality) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7227945.stm
• Image:Zimbabwe billboard.jpg http://flickr.com/photos/sokwanele/1366411450/sizes/o/ (but for non-commercial use only, so not compatible with PD-Self or wikipedia)
• Image:Balancing Rocks.png Looks like it was scanned from a banknote similar to this one http://www.banknotebank.com/display_img.aspx?id=904248&img=a
• Image:Mugabe procession.png the black border around the photo makes me think it's from another site
• Image:Jack Pithey.jpg Looks like a scan from a book
• Image:Gray Hofmeyr.jpg Looks like it's from a video interview
• etc it goes on....

His fair use claims are ok in general, Image:Nkomo.jpg looks like it's invalid though. The reason I bring this up, is because he is also asking unsuspecting users at the Graphics Lab, to make derivatives of some of his images, diff. His view on copyright : diff

Help, would be appreciated, because he actually right from a certain point of view, on the commons, they do tag flags and insignia as PD-Self, even though many of them are older than anyone alive, or were certainly not created by commons users, but by governments and other official groups. Jackaranga (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just silly that you are ignoring this, it won't get any easier for you to solve as time goes on but whatever. Jackaranga (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jameel Sewell

Resolved

- Philippe | Talk 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please help me with this guy who keeps trying to put in something that is NOT cited and is NOT on any websites that I look up. He even told me to go fuck myself or something that effect on my talk page. HELP!!! Boydannie (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack user page MFD

I have a strong desire to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments as speedy delete but would probably be considered to "involved" now. There is at least one other admin voting to keep the attack user page but I really think WP:MFD is the wrong place to deal with such an issue. Thought I would mention it here in case anyone else wants to close it early. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented in the MfD, but I wanted to note that this seems like a big fuss over a well-established practice. Though it is controversial on occasion, user subpages created for the purpose of compiling evidence and collecting thoughts to be used in WP:DR processes are usually considered tolerable. If it lingers overlong and/or never gets used for the appropriate processes, it's a clear speedy delete candidate. I honestly do not understand why this is such a big deal. Vassyana (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting nasty, with admins apparently misrepresenting policies, and the personal attacks now underway. I just left the author of the attack page up for deletion, User:BQZip01, a personal attack warning here. Can we get more eyes on this? Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite suspension of WP:ACC

Resolved

 – someone hacked a fix in for english wikipedia. Devs working on the larger problem, but this is no longer a problem here...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per knowledge of a highly delicate matter in bug 12660 I propose suspension of WP:ACC until the issue has been resolved. _→AzaToth 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except you've now told everyone about the highly delicate matter. Just blank the page next time, or something. I've tried to obscure this slightly. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Owch! This needs fixing ASAP. However, regarding obscuring the matter, I'm actually glad I checked what it refers to and will be acting accordingly myself now that I know - Alison ^❤ 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't find this matter terribly delicate, although it should be fixed. And, like Alison, I went to see what the actual issue was before forming an opinion at ACC. I think there is only one open request there at the moment and, depending on how soon this is taken care of, it shouldn't be a problem to suspend it temporarily. Natalie (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are people who regularly deal with requests for accounts (maybe look through the recent page history?), it might be an idea to let them know - plus anyone who grants requests after this bug was filed (at which point we can pretty much assume that the world and their dog knew about it), and before it was fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Od Mishehu deleted the history prior to yesterday, so now only admins can connect the dots. I think this solves the problem for the past emails. — Satori Son 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've passed this message on to unblock-en-l, as we create a lot of accounts for rangeblocked editors - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, you can just fix MediaWiki:Createaccount-text locally so it doesn't use $1. I've done that for the default message now, in r30562, but it's not going to do anything to customized messages like you have here. No need to raise alarms, just fix it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki text tweaked by User:MZMcBride - yay! - Alison ^❤ 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, beans the musical fruit, the more you talk about this the more you give trolls bad ideas... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think most of us who create enough accounts already knew this information, fwiw. So... it's fixed now? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, yes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yep! And to Jayron - security through obscurity doesn't work, dude. "Professional" trolls most likely read the bugreports more than we do. I'd rather have my eyes open :) - Alison ^❤ 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL at you guys. I filed that bug two weeks ago... I was resigned to accepting it wouldn't being fixed any time soon. Clearly what I did wrong was fail to stir up drama here. I shell be sure to do that next time I want one of my bugs fixed. :D Lucky I randomly decided to test out the account creation process, huh? (And the IP address I was sent had already been 'exposed', so don't worry) – Gurch 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it was just dumb luck that I happened to be looking at WP:AN (which I practically never do) and noticed this. The bug was extremely stupid and trivially fixed, just apparently no one looked at it. One of the jobs of the new junior developer being brought in is apparently going to be reviewing patches that are submitted on Bugzilla, so hopefully this fairly pathetic state of affairs won't continue for too much longer. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I guess my computer really was broadcasting my IP address. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain just WHY an IP address is a 'safety issue'? I've never understood this, and this attitude seems unique to Wikipedia. —Random832 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – already done--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe an editor meant to close this AfD as evident by removing tags on article and noting on talk page but AfD still seems to be open. Could someone check into it? I've messaged the editor but they don't seem to be online right now. Benjiboi 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CU results

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik#Tajik. Both User:Tajik and User:Beh-nam are banned users evading their bans. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns with user's Proding of Mayors' articles

Greetings, I am concerned with the number of Mayor's articles that Noble Sponge (User talk:Noble Sponge|talk) has proded. I have only looked through a couple, but he Proded a former Mayor of Cairns, the 14th largest city in Australia with the rational of "As per Wikipedia policy, small-town mayors are not notable just for being mayors." Being a member of public office has inherent notability (I.E. you were considered by thousands of people to be worthy to speak for them.) I can't see anywhere that specifically says that "As per Wikipedia policy, small-town mayors are not notable just for being mayors." My main concern is that theses Prods appear to have been placed somewhat randomly and indiscriminately. I have left a message on the talk page of the user, but have had no response. Opinions?Fosnez (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, the notability criteria are:

1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7]
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6]
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

He probably should've provided a better reason, but remember, any user can remove a PROD and discuss it on the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand councilors not being notable under the above criteria, but it isn't that hard to assume that all Mayor's are going to receive significant coverage by reliable sources (such as local newspapers etc) while they are in office? Therefore, wouldn't all verifiable Mayors be inherently notable? Fosnez (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with User:MBisanz's response, I'm a pretty strong inclusionist where municipal politicians are concerned. I've removed almost all of his prods, and encouraged him to initiate AfDs on them. Easy prod, easy de-prod. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fosnez, the thing I've often heard in AfD is that the theoretical existence of reliable sources can't overcome the lack of reliable sources. That being said, its probably not a bad idea to AfD these sorts of things so that users can find the reliable sources for those that exist. MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis, taking account of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, being the mayor of my city is a fairly ceremonial position; sure, there'd be local newspaper coverage, but all of it along the lines of "Mayor opens new shopping centre". He wouldn't be notable. At the other end of the scale you have, say, Ken Livingstone. And in the middle you have people whose notability can be thrashed out at AfD. Black Kite 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point BK - I agree with you that the Mayor of London would be notable but the Lord Mayor of London wouldnt. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; the position itself is notable, but the actual holders of the position probably aren't (unless they're notable for other reasons of course). Black Kite 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles on Australian mayors rarely survive AfDs, so prodding seems appropriate. If you disagree remove the prod template. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note that more than 50% of the article mentioned to begin with (Tom Pyne (Cairns Mayor)) was a coatrack for his definitely NN son, which I have removed. There doesn't appear to me much about Pyne online apart from rather trivial news stories [29] but there may be a few things worth adding. But Sarcasticidealist is right; this is a typical AfD case, not a PROD. Black Kite 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I completly agree that the Tom Pine article needs work. Today infact I was able to get a hold of some historical documents that I will be able to use to build on the bio more. Unfortunatly i left them at work :-( Fosnez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Umar Alisha

Resolved

DrEightyEight (talk · contribs) recently added the {{notability}} tag to the article Umar Alisha. Danaullman (talk · contribs) subsequently added a message to the article's talk page about this tag. In what appeared to be a personal message to Umar Alisha, Danaullman stated that Umar Alisha was notable enough for Wikipedia. This was removed by Baegis (talk · contribs), restored by Danaullman and removed again by Baegis. I then restored the message as being "on-topic enough to be included on the talk page". RDOlivaw (talk · contribs) removed the message again as an "abuse of talk page". I'm asking other admins to look at the issue, to prevent what might otherwise become a back-and-forth revert war on a volatile subject, homeopathy. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG. They're effectively banned from editing the articles for the time being, so now they've managed to find reason to edit war on the talk pages. *smacks head into desk* I'll go talk to Dana. Lara❤Love 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleared the messages off the article's talk page, as they serve no useful purpose. I've reminded Dana of his edit summary restriction and warned of possible blocks for this kind of mess. Can this be resolved now? Lara❤Love 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User page in wrong space

Resolved

 – re-userfied. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin deal with the page Moccamonster it's in the wrong place and redirects from User:Moccamonster. Thanks.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back. This type of move-revert can also be made by non-admins. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Career Pathways page deletion

Resolved

 – deleted text has been userfied after consulting with User:DragonflySixtyseven --Versageek 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am in need of administrative help, as a page on a very educational and effective workforce development strategy called career pathways has been deleted. This occurred following my attempt on Friday 2/1 to add three external links.

The added links(http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/careerpathways/index.html; http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/careerpathways/index.html; and www.communitycollegecentral.org/Grantees/Kentucky/CCTINewOrleans0307.ppt) provided further content on career pathways and complied with Wiki standards as far as we are aware. While the link are from the same site (which serves as a sort of research databank), the products are the result of research from multiple different organizations.

We got word from the original creator of the page that he is now getting bombarded with emails from people who want to work on the site.

Please contact me through this account or at (email removed) to let me know how we can resurrect this important site. How can we put the site bAnything you can do to help get Wikipedia to put it back up would be appreciated. Again, I am not sure what edits you made Friday but the site was well documented and met the Wiki standards as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janan douglasgould (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about Career Pathways, which was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven's deletion with a summary of "not an article". You can ask on their talk page about the exact reasons (I guess it was because the article mostly consisted of external links and did not include a proper definition of what "Career Pathways" means - you can probably just go ahead and write a proper article on the topic if you like, or use deletion review). Kusma (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing, potentially violent, vandal comments

Resolved

 – school's IT dept is looking into it

Resolved

 – school IT department confirms student located and disciplinary action taken

Please take a look at this: [30] Considering that the source is a school, I think perhaps this may warrant more than a simple vandal warning. Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I put a school block on it and notified the abuse address at the school. - Philippe | Talk 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Might want to CALL the school. The abuse address might never be checked and this is an explicit threat by name. It's serious to the point of alerting the authorities by voice. I believe this to be the school: [www.oakland.k12.mi.us] Bstone (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Bstone. This is nothing to be taken lightly. It's most likely a joke... BUT... it would be way better to overreact than to have it happen, and know that we could have done something that kept it from happening. нмŵוτнτ 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please post here when someone has called the school and made a confirmed report. Bstone (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would do it but I am in school right now. But I suggest some one calls and calls soon. Rgoodermote  18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can call them. I'm in MN, right next door. Natalie (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The IT department is looking into it. Natalie (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalie. нмŵוτнτ 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks for taking the initiative and time. Probably a harmless prank, but handing it to the authorities for them to investigate is the best thing to do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I received an email from the network administrator confirming that they located the student in question and have taken appropriate action and requesting an unblock. I'm going to do it. - Philippe | Talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User's rude personal attacks

On my special page regarding my user name in different languages, user Leventcik inserted a very rude message Sinat na ebana srpska kurva, meaning "son of f**ked Serbian bitch" (probably Bulgarian language-basics of it known to me). There's also a message in Turkish but I do not know what.. See: here

Cheers and thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate for commments such as this to be made, but edit summaries like shown here are too inappropriate. WP:DENY is an important guideline. We need to deny these trolls and recognition, and when it comes to revision of vandalism (even on our own userpages) just say rv or use the undo button. Rudget. 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of SPA vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Block has already expired. — Satori Son 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:99.237.233.70

This editor is a SPA who sole edits are a dozen blankings.

One editor objects to the block calling it unnecessary. I do not wish to block unnecessarily. Therefore, should I unblock this vandal despite my very strong desire not to unblock? Archtransit (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Who objects?...and the block should have expired by now in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• According to the block log, the IP was blocked two days ago for 24 hours, so unless it's caught in an autoblock, should be able to edit. Black Kite 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also your block was fine, the block came after a final warning. So in truth you have done no misdeeds. Rgoodermote  18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The "unecessary" bit stemmed from the fact that there was no vandalism after the final warning, but the IP was still blocked. In any case, this relatively minor and already-resolved issue is under discussion at the RfC described below, and it's hard to avoid the impression that this is forum-shopping, compounded by a somewhat... incomplete presentation of the situation by Archtransit. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is related to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit. I was the person who brought up this case. Obviously, it's stale now. Archtransit's response unfortunately displays yet more confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What, we are forum shopping now? This is not exactly a good idea, given the existing RFC. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Satanic ritual abuse, article probation

This one needs to be put on Wikipedia:Article probation, quite badly. It's caused multiple threads at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, due the fact that a whole bundle of conspiracy theorists (the contributions of single-purpose account Abuse truth (talk · contribs)) are worth checking out here) have basically taken over the article. SRA is widely acknowledge these days to be a hysterical phantasm cooked up by the panicky media and social workers of the US and Europe in the 80s and 90s, though very isolated incidences of abuse of children with ritualistic overtones did occur and still do. A solid block of editors refuses to acknowledge this, taking refuge in querulous, tedious argumentation and the old refrain that "no evidence that it did happen is not the same as evidence that it didn't happen". Multiple users with brains have had a go at fixing this (User:Dbachmann, User:Vassyana started the current thread at FTN), but to no avail. The community needs to step in here and lend a hand against ridiculously obvious POV-pushing - AGF has exhausted itself. Just an example of how bad this is: for months a whole section was devoted to the case of "Adam", the headless African boy found floating in the Thames a few years back, as a possible incidence of SRA - despite the fact that nobody ever had any idea who "Adam" was, or how he met his death, apart from vague media mutterings about a possible link to voodoo. Something needs to be done here. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article yesterday - are there new issues? My hope was that through protection, the parties would be forced to go to talk and figure it out. - Philippe | Talk 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems are way more long-term than just the one dispute. This is rather like the fights over Homeopathy in microcosm. See here and here. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this will not be resolved by AGF, as the issues are extremely emotional on both sides, and very deeply held. DGG (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia.

Without expressing an opinion here, I'll note that it looks like this could become heated, especially since there are conflicting opinions on Wikia, Wikimedia, and perceived COIs. It's not heated yet, but if you look at the TfD, Template talk:Wikia is not Wikipedia, User talk:AlisonW, User talk:CordeliaHenrietta and Talk:Wikia, there's starting to be some righteous indignation on both sides. In my experience, righteous indignation can sometimes be a sign of bigger trouble looming. Also the template has gone on and off several articles.

I'm not asking for an outcome in either direction, just calming diplomacy. It's one thing when trolls fight but I hate to see trouble break out among good editors.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hitting the road or else I'd get more involved myself. I note now that things have escalated to threats of blocks and accusations of admin abuse on some of the talk pages. Cheers, --A. B. ^(talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, AlisonW threatened to immediately block me for having removed the template from articles, here.

"It is only because your bot shows you as offline that I have not immediately blocked you."

Grossly out of line, and I asked her to withdraw that threat. As an involved party she shouldn't be doing that, to say the least. That is hardly an accusation of admin abuse, that's me asking an admin to withdraw a silly and out of bounds threat of admin action. Lawrence § t/e 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm not sure I see much of a difference between what you said and what I said. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, I just wanted to weigh in, in my own defense. Lawrence § t/e 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Alison also threatened another user with a block over this template. Lawrence § t/e 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that you target the right person... User:AlisonW, not User:Alison. Thanks SirFozzie (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Foz :) I've not threatened anyone .... well, no more than usual :) - Alison ^❤ 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is an {{AlisonW is not Alison}}? :) krimpet✽ 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Alison! While I think Alison may have wanted to at least chide me for being pedantic or repetitious before (kidding!), she definitely isn't the Alison in question... Lawrence § t/e 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I made the same mistake. Sorry, Alison. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly going the way for delete. Closing it early would be acceptable I'd think if problems arise again. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing it early would definitely exacerbate already high tensions. John Reaves 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with John, I don't think an early close would be a wise idea here at all. I also, however, don't believe AlisonW's block threat was a wise move. If a block were to be made, I would be willing to reverse it. I hope it does not come to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Even as one of the people that supports deletion here, I'd be against an early close as well. This one needs a full run. Lawrence § t/e 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably best, though the template is a very minor thing, it raises some significant issues, which I had thought were universal non-issues. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Action review on User:Ssbohio

I've just banned (yeah, wasn't too sure which other word I could use) Ssbohio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from commenting on SqueakBox for 24 hours - my thoughts are that this is better than a block. His continuing comments on various forums are turning into harassment, the final straw being this comment on an entirely unrelated user talk page, just trying to stir up trouble. A review would be welcomed. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, need to get a hold on that mess. Viridae^Talk 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A similar topic ban (relating either to Squeak and/or to the ACS area) might be helpful at some point in the near future if the disruption related to the various incarnations of that article continues. I think the topic ban on SSBOhio is better for him, Squeak and the rest of us. ^Avruchtalk 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope it does the trick so everyone can go back to work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. - Philippe | Talk 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to refrain, but if Ryan is content to misrepresent the facts, I have no choice but to defend my honor. The user talk page discussion was related in that the same wikipedian who blocked allstar has also sided with the editor I'm banned from discussing in the course of a content dispute, and, IIRC, Allstar has been involved in these issues, with his ban even mentioned at the AN/I about the editor I'm banned from discussing. To now say that the user (and their talk page) were "entirely unrelated" might be unfortunate were that to be a credible interpretation. The effect of Ryan's statement above is to disingenuously place me in a false light. If this were as clear-cut a case as he makes it out to be, Ryan would have no need of such tactics.

Similarly, if Ryan can't bring himself to apply similar draconian measures (a ban on speaking about project issues on this project is pretty draconian) to anyone else, then it's hard to see how such hypocrisy makes for good administration of the project. As one of the less equal pigs, this sort of disparity bothers me.

If Ryan had merely talked to me about the issue, I'd've voluntarily refrained in the interest of harmonious editing. Instead, he drew his sword and pointed it at my chest, then informed me of what I'm permitted to say on this project. That kind of action is escalatory in nature; it makes things worse rather than better. Why are we here? Why is this threat a valid tool of policy? It defies reason. THanks for listening. --SSBohio 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• And he's right. Stop trolling other editors. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I hadn't realized we could take that sort of tone here, Guy. Since, by your example, supporting assertions is optional, all I have to say is that no, he's not right, and no, I'm not trolling other editors. An old wheel warrior like you should know that. If I were going to accuse you of trolling (which I could), I'd at least bring some facts to the discussion. I expect you to extend me the courtesy of actually stating a foundation for your accusations, the way I would for you. Throughout this whole issue (AfD, DRV, ANI, etc), a recurring problem has been the posting unsupported opinion and treating it as fact, or at least as sound argument. It's neither. --SSBohio 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop spitting in the soup. You were trolling another editor, don't do that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's more like bickering than discussion, Guy. You say I did. I say I didn't. You haven't added any facts to support your position, only blind allegations. I have trolled no one. You have ignored the times someone has trolled me. If you have facts, bring them. If you have mud to sling, keep it at home. I'm sure there's a policy about that, but I don't speak acronym. --SSBohio 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy these random accusations of restaurant impropriety are not helping the matter. Viridae^Talk 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I'll point out that I was, oddly enough, eating soup when I read Guy's remark. I deny spitting, however.  :-)

I've decided that while I still think this is an undeserved taint on my record, it's better to just shut up & take it than to continue objecting. Thanks to those who have shown me kindness. I wish there were more of you. --SSBohio 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jro201

Jro201 is a newcomer who was blocked for creating a page. Could someone please review his block. Thanks --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef seems harsh. What do others think? Lara❤Love 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a plan on his talk page that is basically a short-term probation against creating new articles for one month/100 article edits. That seems reasonable that, given that the trouble is around creating new articles on a non-notable band, he gets his feet wet before running into the same trouble. Keilana, the blocking admin, has OKed this. I am awaiting the users response before proceeding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good plan. If you kill'em, they don't learn nothin', as they say. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow article probations for situations like these seem just a little bureaucratic. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BITE, ANYONE ? It seems strange, and perhaps a bit off to block anyone for their

first artcle? KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for a merge

Resolved

Please merge Steve shapiro into Steve Shapiro (note the capitalization). Somehow this person has an article on one page and an infobox on the other. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Hi. I need an administrator who has been uninvolved in the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment to bring this discussion to an appropriate close at the designated expiration time. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-up - the designated expiration time has now passed, so any time will do. Cheers again! bd2412 T 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag in danger

Erm, did anybody happen to notice this? Quite apart from the danger to Berlin, the monster's departure looks a little ominous. Suggestions, anybody? 79.229.81.234 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - what is the point of your message? Neıl ☎ 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Resolved

 – Redirect & page deleted

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place but I need the following page [31] deleted. I am not sure if it can be done but as most edits hav been made by myself I seeno harm.

The reason being so is the nature of the details exposesed in the article and rather than delete those {there are several} it is easier for the whole article to be deleted.

Many Thanks Thenthornthing (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you want the article itself deleted, or the redirect, or both? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

both please Thenthornthing (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Bio policy

Hi, I would take this to the BLP board but bio is of dead person and I'm not easily finding documentation that we treat dead people's bios in roughly the same manner. In an RfC on Harold_Washington an editor keeps adding this image which seems only to besmirch the former mayor. The painting is notable enough and has it's own article. Is there some easily identifiable policy that could resolve the dispute one way or another? RfC has run 3-to-1 against use but editor has now re-added several times saying RfC doesn't really count. Benjiboi 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP doesn't include deceased persons, but what is the encyclopedic value of this to the article? If the image is gratuitous, keep it out. If it's relevant to a significant portion of the text, it belongs. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, up to a point: BLP can reasonably be applied wherever genuine hurt is caused to living individuals, and the recently deceased have been extended the same courtesy before now, but Washington died a couple of decades ago so that doesn't really apply here. I agree, though, that linking to the article on the picture should be more than enough. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the image isn't gratuitous, and it assists the article in explaining why the image was immediately controversial. Unfortunately, the Harold Washington article has seen some fairly determined efforts to remove any mention of Mirth and Girth whatsoever, and I've been somewhat concerned that some of the editing involved has been to tout the subject of the article, rather than offer an encyclopedic entry into the man's death and legacy. Also in the article is an image of a statue of Harold Washington. Both were/are on public display, both are artistic representations of the subject and if anything, the painting is more notable than the statue image used int he article. lastly, while an article about the painting was in fact created, Wikipedia is full of images that are used informatively across a number of articles. That this particular image tends to offend a small group of Washington memorialists seems an invalid reason for not using a notable and descriptive image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog for closing AfDs

Just a friendly note that there are some AfDs more than a week old still waiting to be closed! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result)

First off, this has the potential to get very heated very quickly, so I ask that folks PLEASE do their best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF of each other.

One of the long-running fights between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review was banned User:WordBomb's contention that the accounts of Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris were controlled by the same person. The two accounts seemed to have common interests, specifically in stock-related articles regarding Naked Short Selling and other articles like Microcap stock fraud. The two accounts have backed each other up in these articles, as well as on related articles for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investopedia [32].

Recently, a checkuser was done (admittedly, requested by an account who has since been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of WordBomb), which came back as Inconclusive for the following reason: One of the accounts involved has only edited via open proxies. This was later confirmed by a second checkuser. The open proxies that which ever user it was (CheckUser did NOT release that information, per privacy concerns), have been confirmed as blocked. However, that leaves us with a sticky situation.

The fact that of two seemingly related accounts, CheckUser is impossible to confirm any relationship due to the use of open proxies fills me with great concern. It means that we have to fall back on an imperfect standard, that of The Duck Test to find a correlation between the two accounts. That means we have to take action based only on actions, editing patterns and common quirks between the two accounts. I find the evidence credible, but this may assuming bad faith that a common person would know that due to the history about these accounts, that using open proxies would be a requirement to avoid showing a link because sooner or later, CheckUser would be asked for on these accounts.

I freely admit that I am admittedly a biased source, having had a run-in with one of the two accounts that was.. rather acrimonious. What I am looking for is folks to weigh in on the following question:

Knowing that no CheckUser check can be done due to one account uses open proxies only, do you find the accusation that the two accounts are similar under WP:DUCK to be credible]]?

I would request a DISCUSSION (not bombast, threats, or the usual suspects agreeing/disagreeing with each other about this.) I also know that WR has posted off-Wiki information supposedly linking the two accounts, to a real-world IP address and person. I am not endorsing this or linking to it, because quite frankly, I found the tactics.. well.. not to my liking. I am going STRICTLY by the On-Wikipedia evidence here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclean hands is a part of US Common law for good reason. It should be a part of wikipedia common practice. He sockpuppeted to counter Wordbomb's odious disruption (if he even sockpuppeted at all)? Cry Me A River. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. If we want to have the so-called moral high ground on our actions, by God, we'd better be acting the way we preach. That means following the rules (No, double voting on AfD's and constantly propping each other in arguments won't fly as an WP:IAR action. I don't care who the messenger is, as long as the message is true.. which it seems to be. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How does allowing odious Wordbomb to harass our good editors grant us the moral highground? This must have been part of the lecture on morality I missed. Perhaps it was between "do not harm other people intentionally" and "don't hold grudges." PouponOnToast (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - could you think of any reason why someone who was defending naked short selling on wikipedia would want to make themselves functionally anonymous? I can! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be understandable.. IF the two accounts didn't act as a team on many arguments and double-!Votes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I edited from open proxies only, would I be a sock puppet of Science Apologist for agreeing with him and voting with him a lot, and having reasonably the same daily editing schedule? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit difficult to use this as an example, because if you've seen the off-wiki information you'd naturally have a different opinion. However, in general, I would not have a problem blocking account per the duck test if they pass the "reasonable person" test - i.e. looking at the contributions, would a reasonable person assume that they are the same editor. Indeed, for certain CU-avoiding long term vandals and POV-pushers, we eventually have little option but to listen for the sound of distant quacking. Black Kite 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the evidence is clear. Near-identical editing patterns; CU-confirmed open proxy abuse; documented evidence such as answering questions intended for the other account; a duck is a duck. Mantanmoreland has been using an alternate account abusively to influence discussion and votes as if he were two users. :/ krimpet✽ 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but responding to a post by one of the WordBomb socks by saying "this has been asked and answered a dozen times" does not a near identical editing pattern make. We intersect barely and I have made it a point to avoid stock market conspiracy related articles because of just the kind of harassment that Samiharris is getting off-wiki. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but this does: Another administrator who had access to an analysis tool useful to compare two accounts ran a comparison of the two accounts, and considered the technical evidence striking: Here's the analysis:

Common edit time: Approximately 3:30 PM on each side (the two accounts differed on median edit time by only 13 minutes)

Number of articles which both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have jointly participated: 45

% of articles that Samiharris has edited that were also were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 27 percent.

% of edits that Samiharris made that were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 60%

The evidence of Quacking is growing in my eyes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is weak evidence like that presented above appropriate? "Another administrator" "an analysis tool?" Could you please provide confirmation of the other adminstrator and the tool used? Since said tool would require no access, perhaps just providing us the output of the tool would be fine. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who compiled the statistics and provided them to SirFozzie. Anyone could do the exact same thing with a calculator or a spreadsheet. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that fails the duck test. It's evidence of similarity of interests, and in conjunction with other interests would potentially be part of a duck test analysis, but the degree of non-similarity you demonstrate above is something that true sockpuppet accounts are rarely able to maintain over time.

-

I think you've provided Mantanmoreland and Sami with great evidence for the defense. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

-

Uh.. ok, whatever you say, GWH. Whatever you say. For your next trick are you going to Prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing? SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By that I mean, you're awfully flippant about insisting that evidence that several admins find highly compelling of a duck test, means just the opposite. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had some interaction with User:Samiharris (full disclosure, he GA'd Option (finance) of which I am a principle editor). I found him to be knowledgeable and serious. It's hard for me to reconcile what I know of him with the accusation of crass sock-puppetry. The evidence seems pretty thin. Ronnotel (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited Naked short selling in two months[33], and then it was to revert some blatant POV pushing by a WordBomb sock. [34]. Samiharris has been all over that article before and since, which is precisely why he is being targeted by Judd Bagley.

Oh, I forgot: Talk:Naked short selling.[35] My last edit was Dec. 7. Samiharris's last edit before that was Oct. 16 and his first edit after that was.... aw gee, no edits. But there is John Nevard, who is also being targeted by Wikipedia Review so I guess that counts. Zowie! Me and my sock didn't coordinate too well that time. Got to get my spreadsheet out to figure out where that one went wrong.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Am I the only one wondering how hard Bagley is currently laughing at the disruption his sockpuppet caused by logging this checkuser request? The whole thing is caused by a checkuser request logged by a checkuser blocked sockpuppet of WordBomb. Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5. Even if we don't do that, CheckUser came back "unlikely", and although some good people are re-examining the entrails I don't see much evidence that this will change. Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question. In the absence of hard evidence, or indeed of evidence of an actual problem with the edits made by either account, I am strongly inclined to point Bagley in the direction of the colloquial version of Genesis 1:28 and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was expecting when I posted this section, that the usual suspects would turn this into the latest "OMGBADSITES" discussion. And as I said on the RfCU talk page.. if something smells bad on Wikipedia, and someone who points out that there's a bad smell, and it turns out there really IS a bad smell, I won't sit there and ignore the bad smell because I don't like the person who told me there was a bad smell. Come on Guy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case; he is an obsessive troll. And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors. It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)