Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

Related pages:

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

General

Tasks

WP:CP

Help in housekeeping on Wikipedia:Copyright problems is appreciated. -- Infrogmation 08:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what do we do about ones like Brazil for Christ Pentecostal Church? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Marcellin Champagnat from [1]. The article was rewritten and now the copyvio is in the edit history! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also see Ödön von Horváth which needs to be removed (by a developer no less) from the edit history. [2] - Ta bu shi da yu 09:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help determining dificult cases is much appreciated. Work on shoveling out the obvious cases when appropriate, however, is always needed to help keep the page at a managable size. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Double-blocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP addresses and sock puppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A strategy for identifying and blocking vandals

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

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

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

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

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

Links to Wiktionary

Hi, all, there's a proposal (and a template) at Wikipedia:Soft redirect for handling pages that ought to be links to Wiktionary. I'd like to start using this, which looks good to me, but I'm not sure it's really official yet; can we get some more comment there so we can make this formal? (And my apologies if it already is, and I was just clueless - the page doesn't sound like it, and I hadn't heard about it until very recently.) Noel (talk) 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good policy for topics with no encyclopedic potential. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New undeletion ability

crossposted to several places
Sysops now have the ability to undelete only selected revisions of a page. Please read over the explanation on Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops and join in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy. Thank you. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Special pages

Is there any way to get special pages like Special:Log/block on my watchlist? Back when it was called Wikipedia:Block log, I found it useful to be able to see updates on my watchlist. Gamaliel 21:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I miss that too. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't tried this to see if it works, but you could try putting a link to Special:Log/block (and any similar things you want to keep an eye on) on a sub-page of your user page, and then go there and hit "Related changes" and see if that works. (That's what people used to do before watchlists, IIRC...) Noel (talk) 12:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocking bug

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proxy list

I'm confused about something. Should we be blocking all open proxies currently being used by people like the GNAA? I have found an updated list at http://www.q-cat.com/goodproxies.txt but I don't particularly want to start blocking these until I work out whether we should actually do so. Apparently some of our Chinese users use these IP addresses. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Policy decision on VfD

I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention a bit of policy that is being decided at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for someone to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space when policy calls for the RfC to be deleted. Is this similar to copying a deleted article to BJAODN or is it circumventing Wikipedia policy? Your input is welcome. SWAdair | Talk 02:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Subpages of personal pages were always material for speedies, and I think that Amgine's attempts at an RfC on "his" subpage deserve deletion without further trouble. JFW | T@lk 03:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cat bug

There's an annoying bug in Category:League of Nations which lists the same subcat, Category:League of Nations Mandates, in triplicate. Any idea how to fix this? I've tried deleting the subcat and then recreating it but that hasn't helped. AndyL 19:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Noel (talk) 03:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autoblocker

The autoblocker appears to be going wild right now, does anyone know what's going on? Jayjg | (Talk) 00:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Without knowing the IP address involved, it's difficult to say for sure what's happening, but it appears that either blocked user User:Deeceevoice was sharing a proxy with a large number of people (possible, but unlikely), or that user had a bunch of aliases they tried to use (more likely - note the times on the autoblocks - all within a few minutes of each others, about 3/4 hour after the original block was put in place). Seems to have stopped now. Noel (talk) 02:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet template

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

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

Incidents

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups 3RR violation

From WP:RFP, dab reports:

User:Antifinnugor has broken the 3RR on this page (see page history), and should be blocked for some time (I don't block him myself because I have been involved with him before). Also, the consensus is that this page should be a redirect, so it would make sense to protect it, since there will be no edits to it as long as this consensus is not overthrown on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages.

This is Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups; checking this out now. Noel (talk) 18:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, after reviewing the history at "Critique" (clear violation, see details here), I banned User:Antifinnugor for 12 hours only, to impress upon them that we are serious about these rules, and have enforcement mechanisms. If they act up again, let us know.

I'll leave it to someone else to sort out the redirect issue. Noel (talk) 19:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, in line with policy, I had to block User:Wiglaf for a 3RR violation (details here) too. I made theirs shorter than Finnugor's, as i) they were less egregious (only 4, as opposed to the 7 Antifinnugor racked up), and ii) they were only trying to put in place community consensus. Noel (talk) 19:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say that a violation is a violation. I am uncomfortable with admins trying to interpret the degree of bad behaviour and setting the length of the block accordingly. it's bound to lead to cries of "unfair". IMO deliberate violations after being warned should recieve a 24 hour block. That way all partied know what will happen if they break the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Look, I understand where you're coming from. But try looking at it from the other side. I felt really uncomfortable blocking Wiglaf at all, and only did so because policy said you had to sanction both sides, when both sides had exceeded the 3RR. If I had had to give Wiglaf the exact same block as I gave Antifinnugor, even though his actions were not equivalent, I would have thrown up my hands and declined to become involved. Trust me, I'd be just as happy getting on with editing articles; I don't need grief when I try and apply rules with a little proportionality leavened in. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noel I wasn't trying to give you grief, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I do not think what you did was wrong. All I'm saying is that, in order to avoid exactly the kind of comment that Dr Zen made below, it might be a good idea to block all violators in an edit war for the same amount of time.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but if I'd blocked them both for the same amount of time, somebody else would probably have given me grief for meting out the same results when the two cases had major differences! You can't win. Noel (talk) 17:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly what we discussed when the vote was going on. We suggested that admins would not be evenhanded and voila! Here we have it. A revert is a revert. Just because you agree with the guy reverting does not stop that.Dr Zen 04:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of the content they are arguing over, I never even read it; and AFAIK, I've never had any interaction with Wiglaf before. So I fail to understand in what sense "I agree with the guy reverting". I looked at what had gone on and made a decision based on the fact that the two people's actions were not identical. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And what makes you think Noel agrees with Wiglaf? Really Zen are you trying to resolve a dispute or inflame one? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My apologies to Noel but this is exactly what we discussed, Theresa. I Admins interpret the policy and are not evenhanded. I don't think they should. If one "side" gets 12 hours, the other should get 12 hours. Then no one can feel aggrieved. The policy does not, so far as I recall, specify greater punishment for greater breach. I think a revert is a revert. The whole point of the rule is that no one does four. That's the sin; that's what should be punished. Interpreting the reverter's behaviour, deciding one is worse than the other (or as we discussed a "vandal" or a "troll") is precisely what I think shouldn't happen.

I note, Theresa, that again you have accused another editor of showing bad faith when you disagree with them. Dr Zen 01:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I were Wiglaf, I'd certainly feel pretty darned aggrieved if I got the same penalty as AFU. The policy also does not rule out "greater punishment for greater breach" - and I'd love to see the discussion if you tried to get a prohibition of that added.

If it makes you happier, try looking at it this way: I assessed a penalty of 4 hours for each 3RR violation, to be served consecutively - and AFU, with more violations of the rule, wound up with a longer penalty. Noel (talk) 11:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make me happier. I feel that a block for the fourth revert is fair, and should be applied evenly.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Next time there's a case, you can decide how to handle it (I'll implement your decision, if it's within the rules), and then the rest of us will all stand around taking pot-shots at you because we think you made a poor decision (for reasons A, B, C, D, E, F and G). Noel (talk) 16:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigh -in what way am I disagreeing with you? I was the one who said i was uncomfortable with admins applying blocks of different times to either side.That's what you are saying isn't it? I accused you of inflaming the dispute, because you accused Noel of blocking Wiglaf because "you agree with the guy reverting". That is somewhat inflammatory dont you think? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noel said that Wiglaf was trying to put in place "community consensus". The implication is that this makes his breach of the rule more agreeable. I disagree. I don't think edit warriors should be less punished because the views they are reverting to are more popular. I know we agree, Theresa. That is why I made the comment. I was agreeing with you. Where we seem to disagree is that you don't feel Noel sided with Wiglaf.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noel acted very correctly. He blocked Wiglaf, even though Wiglaf was re-instating the consensus version. (not 'even though he agreed with Wiglaf'; the blocks are unrelated to the content of the dispute, but entirely based on the page history (number of reverts)). Fact is that AFU reverted 7 times and Wiglaf 4 times. This is sufficient basis for making AFU's block longer. Both blocks were reasonably short, and have expired already. dab (ᛏ) 09:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that is, "should have expired". This bug is annoying. I'm unblocking them both. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the policy. I've already had someone suggesting that you are closer to breaching the "spirit" of it if you revert twice than you are if you revert once, which I couldn't find in the policy. I thought the policy was intended to prevent edit wars by banning reversion more than three times in a day. I didn't realise that the intention was to have a sliding scale of punishment for doing it more or less. Do you mind pointing me to the part of the policy that suggested that this would happen? And Bishonen, just because you warn one side but do not warn the other, does not mean the side warned should receive more punishment! This is precisely what I and I think others feared with this policy. Perceived bad users are punished more heavily than perceived good ones, for the same offence. This helps entrench them as bad users. If you did not also warn Wiglaf, BTW, you too were not evenhanded. Be fair, and be seen to be fair. Dr Zen 01:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It's not just a question of number of reverts. Please note that Antifinnugor was warned several times, before and while he was exceeding the 3 revert limit. For example, here's my edit line when I reverted him, after he'd reverted the 5th time. He reverted again. I then warned him on his talk page, repeating a link to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule that somebody else had already given him, and asking him to please stop breaking the rules; he replied, thus showing that he had read my message, then reverted again, for the seventh time within the same 24 hours. After all that a 12 hour-block seems like a mild response. If any users still, after this information, think Antifinnugor's infraction's the same as Wiglaf's because "a revert is a revert," they must be mounted on some old hobby-horse.--Bishonen | Talk 12:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that too, although I assumed that as a long-time editor Wiglaf knew of the 3RR, and just lost track of how many times he'd reverted. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

of course. but admins should still 'blindly' block 3RR violations, purely based on page-history evidence. The alternative would be that each admin would have to dig into the details of each individual case before being able to determine appropriate action. A 24h block may take away some heat, temporarily, but it will not solve the problem. There will be ample opportunity to comment on AFU's behaviour once his RFC (still a draft) is submitted. dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The policy says "for up to 24 hours", not "for 24 hours". I.e. discretion to use lesser periods is allowed, I did so, reserving the longer 24-hour maximum for vandals, who are also, according to policy, only supposed to be given 24 hours for a first offense. I personally don't think 3RR violations merit the same punishment as vandalism, and would again (see my comments to Theresa above) avoid acting rather than hand down such a block.

Anyway, someone said in the 3RR discussion something to the effect of "this is just a symbolic punishment anyway". That's absolutely correct - being blocked for a couple of hours isn't a real check on someone who's determined to make trouble. Lesser times serve just as well as longer ones to get a message through to those who are receptive to it. Noel (talk) 14:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well maybe, it depends when you do the block. If you were to block someone at say 10pm local time for 12 hours and that person only edited during the early evenings, they mightn't even notice the block. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFU is back, and evidently not of the receptive kind ;o) [4]. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dab is permanently redirecting the above mentioned page to an other page, that states quite other things, which is clearly vandalism. He has no idea about the contents, he just acts due from unknown reasons (probably hate?) Besides, he animates others for vandalism, like Wiglaf. He is absolutely not willing to discuss, since he does not know the subject deep enough to be able to discuss, he just reverts without an end. This is somehow no good. antifinnugor 17:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone else can deal with AFU this time. Noel (talk) 17:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it's ok. Sorry it turned out to be such a pain for you (although, as far as I can see, nobody attacked you directly for your action. It's just that this seems to turn into some sort of 3RR precedent case). I know it may sound like taunting, but 172 has acted upon AFU's request for protection, and I am quite amused to see that this has resolved this particular case for the near future :o) dab (ᛏ) 18:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

btw, I fully agree that admins should be allowed discretion on how to apply "blocks up to 24h", i.e. the blocks may be shorter, as long as no side of the dispute is favoured, and in this case, Jnc gave a clear explanation of how he arrived at his decision. dab (ᛏ) 18:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Dr. Zen and a couple others expressed concerns during the 3RR vote that admins would not be evenhanded, there were others of us who expressed precisely the opposite worry: that admins would be expected to act like mindless robots. We are intelligent people here, and there is no reason to pretend we can't tell the difference between 4 reverts and 7, or between a user making a mistake and one who blatantly ignores the rules after being warned. Isomorphic 03:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

indeed. otherwise, admins should all be replaced by very small shell scripts :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to put a reply to Dr Zen's reply above, inlined above my original post, so I'll start afresh here for the sake of chronology. Zen, are you saying it would have been fairer to not warn a user in full spate of over-the-limit reverting, but just stand by and give him unlimited rope to hang himself with? Unless, that is, I set off those warnings by the pedantry of digging into the History tab to locate any other users who might have "used up" their three reverts (something people do all the time, and then stop, as I'm sure you know) and plant warnings on them too, against the remote possibility that one of them can't count to three (sorry, Wiglaf)? Coming in new to an old conflict, I was hoping to help AFU, even though I had to take the other side of the argument--to establish contact with him on a non-inflammatory level. Did you bother to read the talk page link I provided? You and I haven't met, you know nothing of where I'm coming from, so you just figure my motives have to be bad and flame me in passing. Nice going. But I apologize to other people for responding to flamebait on this page. Anybody who has anything more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd take it to my talk page.--Bishonen | Talk 12:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it would be fairer to warn both and for both to receive the same punishment. You are forgetting that you suggested that having been warned is reason to give him greater punishment. That is what I take issue with and only that. I am not criticising the warning in any way, only the latter notion. I am not discussing your motives and I am sorry you feel you've been flamed. I am discussing the general point because I think it is important that breaches of the 3RR are treated evenhandedly, with all those who breach it in any given dispute getting the same punishment, regardless who does or does not agree with their views, regardless who has or has not been warned.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen, you are apparently not aware that Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of our most fundamental principles, certainly more fundamental than the 3RR rule. Given the facts, it is possible to assume good faith on the part of Wiglaf. Noel chose to do so. It is not possible to assume good faith on the part of AFU, who deliberately chose to ignore warnings. That is the fundamental difference between the two cases, and it would not be "even-handed" to ignore it. Isomorphic 07:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template talk:Wikipedialang

some ugly reverting has been going on there. Technically, nobody has violated the 3RR. I am listing this here to draw attention to the problems we will have with enforcing the 3RR. I have lots of IP addresses to burn myself, and could go about reverting stuff with impunity. I guess in cases where it is obvious that reverts from different IPs are coming from the same editor, a block should be permissible. But this of course will open disputes as to which cases are 'obvious'. dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The IP addresses were from around the world; it's pretty clearly a coordinated effort, presumably on an IRC channel or similar. The template was locked - David Gerard 23:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why does the history for that Talk: page show so many deleted versions (versions which I assume from the usernames who created them, without looking at them, are OK revisions)? Noel (talk) 18:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

good question. Also, why is there no deletion log?! (i.e. we don't know who deleted these versions) dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably because prior to 1.4, the system wasn't good about keeping that info; it had it for a while after the page was deleted, but seemed to lose track of if after a while. Noel (talk) 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The versions in the history jump from "00:42, 18 Jun 2004" to "05:10, 3 Dec 2004", which seems somewhat odd. Checking further, the deleted versions run from "23:23, 3 Jun 2004" to "05:11, 3 Dec 2004" (note slight overlap), but there's a version at "00:42, 18 Jun 2004" labelled "moved from MediaWiki talk:Wikipedialang" (note time match with start of gap). The deleted "05:11, 3 Dec 2004" version has a CSD notice on it for history merge. Sounds like the history merge somehow didn't get completed, or something? Anyone know of any reason I shouldn't undelete the versions that fit into the gap? Noel (talk) 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Alberuni

Jamesday advised me (on inspection of various technical details) that he is pretty much certain that Pravda, RomperRoomReject, Goines, Kosudo CONMEBOL, 888, Abdel Qadir, SLUR, Crypto, Weisenthaler are all the same user. Abdel Qadir is the earliest username, so I've blocked the others indefinitely as socks to get around 3RR and personal abusiveness warnings, and put a warning on his talk page. When dealing with any of these, keep the other names in mind - David Gerard 01:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to round out the story, Jamesday advised me (on inspection of various technical details) that he is pretty much certain that all of them, as well as Jewjg, ThinkPink, Peter Phipps, and NeverAgain, are sockpuppets of Alberuni, as I (and others) have been saying for weeks. (O.K., some of them like Peter Phipps, Crypto, Goines, Kosudo CONMEBOL, and 888 were surprises, but that was only because Alberuni hadn't gotten around to using them for mischief yet; the others, though, were obvious). By the way, just to understand the kind of inventively loathsome hatred that was going on here, have a look at his newest sockpuppet NeverAgain. The user page image, that of a famous Rembrandt painting of a Jew, is called "Jonah666". Jonah, of course, was the prophet who endangered those around him, and 666 is the number of the beast. The picture itself says "perennial" when you wave your cursor over it, an homage to Adolf Hitler's phrase "the perennial Jew". And of course, the phrase "Never Again" is one often used by Jews as regards the Holocaust. On top of everything else, the image may well be a CopyVio of this. The whole thing is chilling, and I'm not surprised that good editors were abandoning Wikipedia in the face of the at best tepid (and sometimes even supportive!) administrator response this onslaught. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, I hardly think it's an admin issue. It wasn't until Jamesday told David Gerard that these were really sock puppets that we could actually do anything. I mean, I'm loathe to block suspected sock puppets on a whim and an instinct. I'd like to see some proof first. But now there is proof I have great pleasure in blocking Jewjg from EVER editing again. I actually asked David to let me have first crack at him. David is dealing with the rest. I'm only sorry that Jayjg had to go through all this: I've also been on the receiving end of Alberuni's abuse. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts throughout this whole episode, Ta bu shi da yu, and you're right that administrators do not yet have the right resources to easily prove sockpuppetry. With any luck that will be rectified soon. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All known socks have been blocked indefinitely, and Alberuni for a few days to get this mess sorted out - David Gerard 14:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also feel that WP has inadequate defense against hate speech and sockpuppetry. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last time this came up, no-one could come up with a definition of 'hate speech' that didn't come down to 'I know it when I see it'. Sockpuppetry is a trickier one - David Gerard 22:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David, "I know it when I see it" can be a useful rule of thumb. The Wiesenthal/Alberuni abuse wasn't a borderline case, but was clear-cut, deeply offensive, and aimed at a specific ethnic group. Yet I was told that to block a user for personal attacks, the case would have to go to the ArbCom, but couldn't be dealt with in a summary way by an admin. I don't know whether that's true, but if it is, it seems wrong to me that someone can be blocked instantly and without warning for violating 3RR, yet can't be blocked for serious and sustained racial attacks without going to arbitration, especially when the user (Wiesenthal) confessed to being a sockpuppet. Slim 22:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

GNAA attack

There appears to be a GNAA attack in progress using open proxy lists. User names have been faked using nonprintable characters - don't cut'n'paste a username to block it. See User talk:Jimbo Wales and watch RC - David Gerard 10:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could someone block User:Improv%AD? --fvw* 13:17, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: http://www.q-cat.com/goodproxies.txt + http://jgillick.nettripper.com/switchproxy/ makes Jack an unhappy boy. That's the combination they're using. It wasn't hard to discover this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR violation at Modern anti-Semitism

User:Deeceevoice has violated the 3RR at Modern anti-Semitism [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (note, the last is a complex revert, to get around the 3RR). Insists that his POV editorials do not require sources, because they are simple facts. Was warned twice about 3RR [10] [11]. In response scoffs at the 3RR, says he is "trembling in his boots". [12] Jayjg | (Talk) 20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deeceevoice does contribute some great stuff to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he won't be able to for the next 24 hours. Looking over the rest of the article's edit history now - David Gerard 21:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

• 21:02, 2004 Dec 29 [13]
• 17:02, 2004 Dec 30 [14]
• 19:57, 2004 Dec 30 [15]
• 20:24, 2004 Dec 30 [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:68.189.249.219/User:A bancroftian64

Last night I blocked User:68.189.249.219, a run-of-the-mill vandal screwing with the George W. Bush article, for the standard 24 hours. Not too long ago I got an email from "A bancroftian64" <dhawk642000 at yahoo.com> giving me some sob story about a friend using his computer so I unblocked the IP address. Almost immediately, User:A bancroftian64 and User:Melgibson999 began vandalizing, so I blocked both of them. Just wanted to warn everyone not to fall for the sob story if they get a similar email. Gamaliel 02:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog

Sollog is back again, major reverting happening at Sollog. I've used up my reverts for today, could peoople keep an eye on it please? --fvw* 17:25, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Such a pity it's not 'simple vandalism' - David Gerard 17:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a lot easier to clean up. On the bright side, this means I have an excuse to bow out and let others do work :-) --fvw* 18:11, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

User:Tohes has been warned for personal attacks. User:Tohchina has been blocked, as has an IP. Check Talk:Sollog. If a dev could check these for sockpuppet matches (to check there's not sockpuppeting going on to get around 3RR), that would be most appreciated ... - David Gerard 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mazur

There's an edit war going on at Mazur, both editors have been warned they'd violated the 3RR but have continued to violate it after that. Despite all that nastiness, have a wonderful new year everyone! --fvw* 04:19, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker

Please delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. It was filed inproperly, and it is long past due for deletion. — マイケル ₪ 00:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean filed improperly? It was cerftified by two users, so it seems bonafide to me. --fvw* 04:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)