Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2006

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Administrative actions

User:Rjk_wikisource

I have been asked to indefinitely ban (aka nuke) this user by w:User:BradP (lawyer for WMF) as an extension of the WP ban of Robert J Koenig. See w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robertjkoenig although this doesn't show the infinate block Jimbo authorized and his user and talk pages have been deleted. Without going into long details here, I will say that such an extension would be the correct thing do. I have received evidence via email about this case and Robert J Koeing needs to be banned. However the evidence that User:Rjk wikisource is the same person is circumstantial. It is a very strong likelihood but checkuser failed to confirm this. I personally believe they are one in the same and will give him an infinite block unless someone objects here. His contributions to Wikisource have been deleted; however they were not intentional vandalism in my opinion. They were documents regarding court cases vs. USAA which is a personnel vendetta of Robert J Koenig as you can see on WP. Please give your opinion here do you agree that I should count them as the same person or should we reserve nuking for cases with absolute proof?--BirgitteSB 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As you said the circumstances are very strong in favoring that this is the one and same Robert Koenig. Because of the fact that the initials in the user name correspond to the initials of the guy who was nuked on WP, and the fact that what this user uploaded is directly related to a court case that Koenig was in, it's pretty hard (in my opinion) to argue that they are two different people. Since the illegal actions were committed here, I propose extending WP's nuke to WS. If, in the slightest chance the two people are different, let's leave a message on the user's talk page indicating that the account (inactive since the incident, and will probably remain inactive from now on) has been permanently banned, and that if we have erred, the user can contest the action on the talk page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of reference, you can see Jimbo Wales' block in the block log. The user is blockable per a foundation lawyer's request, and the circumstantial evidence is extremely strong that the users are the same. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup, I have made the block.--BirgitteSB 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


In an unfortunate continuation of this case we have [1] and [2]. I have talked with Amigne who dealt with this case over at wikinews, and these have macthed other IP's known to him. Although I don't know the details. It has been suggested we just delete and bann on sight. I would like to track this activity as well since once we delete an upload we cannot go back and do any tracking. I sent an email to User:BradPatrick asking his advice about this and a few other questions I had. I will keep you guys updated--BirgitteSB 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've downloaded the documents in case we do delete them (that way, the contents themselves won't be lost forever). This is highly fishy; if we're tying these IP's to Koenig, I say we begin banning them. We might want to think about formulating a sockpuppet policy. This guy seems persistent to get these documents uploaded to WS.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
They were tied to him. I deleted and banned the two involved accounts.--BirgitteSB 18:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Block open proxies

A short while ago, a malicious vandalbot launched an attack on Wikipedia using a total of 271 open proxies (see w:Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Squidward). I propose we preemptively block all these under the open proxy prohibition, which is applicable Wikimedia-wide but doesn't yet exist on Wikisource. Damage to Wikipedia was successfully prevented, but Wikisource simply doesn't have the dedicated vandalfighters to deal with this kind of attack. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WS has very few dedicated workers. Of course, most of them has sysop rights, but still, reverting a million edits is a pain and takes away time from other activities. Still, I say we implement this. How, exactly, do you determine which proxies are open and which are not?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
They can be checked with various downloadable proxy scanners. A good Unix/Linux tool is Proxycheck, a somewhat acceptable online tool is Stay Invisible's Check Proxy. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the above policy although it is technically above my head.--BirgitteSB 18:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Agree with the policy, but don't really know the technical stuff.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Likewise I'm not sure on the technical side but I can agree we don't want industrialised vandalism on wikisource so I'd say we can block them, though I am worried whether this will affect in any way the ability of people like AOL users or public libraries to edit wikisource? I'm assuming not but I don't know. I also think that we should add something similar to Advice to Tor users in China(& other non-internet friendly regimes) if we do this. AllanHainey 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This should not affect AOL or public network users. Users who are blocked recieve a link to Wikisource:WikiProject on open proxies/Help:blocked, which explains why they're blocked and links them to to Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 13:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted that most of the admins here do not know how to identify an open proxy. Do you suggest that whenever we block an IP to make note here asking you to check if it is an open proxy? Or do you plan on checking the list of blocked IP's daily to see if any ar open? Or do you have another procedure in mind?--BirgitteSB 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have done this. Is there any way of using a similar bot to itentify pages that already have rogue URLs on them. I recently deleted two blocks of porn/gambling URLs in place since last September. Apwoolrich 20:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Announcements

Special:Undelete

I've changed how the Special:Undelete view works a little bit. The last deleted page text is no longer displayed above the revisions list; it tended to be rather annoying for big pages and could make things hard to deal with if the page had hostile CSS (eg obscuring the buttons).

The revisions also now display the wiki source code by default, making it easier to examine the code of a deleted page or copy-and-paste if necessary. Rendered preview from there is optional.

Please copy this notification to whereever your wiki's curious sysops may be hanging out.

-- brion vibber

Copied here from the foundation mailing list--BirgitteSB 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've gone ahead and enabled the semi-protection level for all of our wikis.

A total of 16 had already explicitly requested it over the last couple months, and I haven't heard from any site asking to keep the option on.

Unless it's actually used by the admins on a given site, there's no change in behavior; it's just a middle-level option now available between unprotected and sysops-only.

-- brion vibber

This was on the Foundation-I mailing list.Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reports

85.98.*.*

The page Category:Fiction was vandalised today from IP address 85.98.214.244. Lots of porn links were added to the page. I've removed the links. Just reporting for any further action. - illy 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just happened again to Wikisource:What is Wikisource? from IP 85.98.96.231. Same set of links. I'll remove them. - illy 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, not sure if its the exact same set. They are going to the same base website.

- illy 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

65.167.69.225

The page Downing Street memo was vandalised today from IP address 65.167.69.225. The cuplrit seemed to have added "ub" before every vowel. I changed it back to what it was before.--Politicaljunkie 14:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource is often the target of one-time vandal edits. I tend to just revert, and only warn if they make more than one edit. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

68.96.23.7

I'm not sure what to do, as this user has committed a great deal of vandalism. The user has vandalized the 2000 US Presidential Election, September 11, 2001: Attack on America, 2004 US Presidential Election, Gettysburg Address, User talk:Politicaljunkie, User:Tubeone, User talk:205.221.222.253, Lanny the Lizard, Talk:Lanny the Lizard, User:HaikuMan, and User:Politicaljunkie. All the edits have been derogatory and offensive.

The IP address was blocked and reverted appropriately. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

--BirgitteSB 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandals?

Are User:169.244.143.115 and User:HaikuMan possible vandals? For some reason they strike me as the same user, and they don't seem to be sincere about their contributions here. It seems more like this is a joke to them to see how much work they can get the admins/experienced users to do for them. At first glance, I thought the user with the IP address was a vandal but I held back from taking any action. But now I'm not sure.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No Vandal HaikuMan I calmed down Z due to his edits I told him it was wrong... Please listen... New users not vandals... That other person 68... is possibly somewhat different vandaled lanny the lizard... it was a real poem... Sorry for confusion... --169.244.143.115 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, then I took the right action in not blocking anybody as vandals. I suggest, though, that both of you read our Help pages and browse Wikipedia's w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style so that you can both properly format your contributions. That way, they won't inadvertently look like vandalism.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

this History of Zeus should be deleted. ThomasV 15:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree 110% TV and I was going to say though Firefly is saved... google Haiku then first link click ASSA 169.244.143.115 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) cleanup though is needed.
I am not sure if this is vandalism or not, but they are certainly wasting our time. shall we block them? ThomasV 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking blocking them for 24 hours so they can read up on how to properly format articles. I say we give them one more warning, though, to figure it out themselves without the block.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I got the warn Zhaladshar but I know your busy I hope you can guide us
Read those pages. We all spent many good hours writing those so they would be decent guides for newbies. Please use them.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand that experienced editors may not be willing to undertake the extra burden of formatting new users' contributions, I'm concerned that we're strongly alienating new contributors. Wikipedia has a page on the matter, which I feel is appropriate on Wikisource: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Statements like "they are certainly wasting our time", speaking of a participant of the discussion in the third person, excluding their input, suggesting they be blocked until they can contribute "properly", and giving them a "warning" for not knowing how to format a text are extremely discouraging to them. One of the greatest benefits of a wiki are that everyone can edit and that there is an editing community. This discussion shows neither. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but read the discussions with them. My talk page, ThomasV's and their talk pages make me think that they aren't exactly newbies (the way both of them talk lead me to believe they are also the same user). I didn't want to ride their cases, but they weren't making any effort to improve, and their edits looked like nothing but vandalism. Nothing about it looked like it was sincere; if I thought they were, I wouldn't have been so hard.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Can i just say something Can we stop killing the new people? Pathoschild is trying to help us... Z take a chill pill...216.220.231.226 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Their edits seem legitimate to me, however poorly formatted. I'm willing to assume good faith and help them learn our style guidelines. 216.220.231.226, please assume good faith as well. We all mean well, although our perspectives may differ; that is why we are discussing, instead of simply taking immediate action. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Pathoschild : I share your general opinion on principle, but that case was really borderline. I am not sure what kind of newbies they were, but they were editing kind of fast... not the style of a newbie. I tend to believe they were one single person, trying to test how fast we would react. I do not think Zhaladshar had to block them, they just gave up. Note that I deleted a few pages by them, and that these pages do not show up anymore in their list of edits. ThomasV 13:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It started again, a few minutes ago. I blocked User:216.220.231.226 for 24 hours. This user was flooding the list of recent changes with contributions that are not really vandalism, but that are useless. I think it is dangerous to let him go on, because he is editing too fast for other users to control his edits. ThomasV 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Block for 24 Hours Thomas V what will this solve just you acting out in a manner which is calling the man or woman a vandal shame on you! 130.111.98.244 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC) LargoKINGS

I am lifting the block, since the last few contributions are more appropriate to WS's purview. While erratic and random, it does look like the user is actually starting to make an effort to make real, constructive contributions.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the users 130.111.98.244, 169.244.143.115 and216.220.231.226 are from Maine in the U.S.A., specifically the University of Maine, Maine Libraries/Dept. of Education and Mid-Maine Communications respectively. AllanHainey 16:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, how'd you figure that out? Could this mean that all three addresses are being used by the same person?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you explain HaikuMan and leave the people of Maine alone for real you guys are to hard on us we havent done a damn thing in the last couple of hours so there Pathos

I used IP address tracker. AllanHainey 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CALLED SPYING OR WIRETAPPING you should know REPBUCLIACANS??? are you?? come on by nice

Actually I'm a Scottish Nationalist & have no strong feelings about the monarchy either way. Why are you so aggrieved. If you want to participat in wikisource I'm sure you are perfectly able to do so without purposely baiting the regulars. I hope you decide to contribute seriously. If you decide to please sign your posts & create an account. AllanHainey 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And please refrain from comments like that anyway. That's getting too close to being a personal attack, which should never happen on Wikisource by anyone. Thanks for the link, Allan.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CHEERS MATE PERSONAL ATTACK NA!

Looking through my bookmarks I find I've got a better & more thorough IP address tracker. This one can narrow it down to the city. The third box on the left shows 130 & 169 are both from the University of Maine at Orono & 216 at Maine College of Art, Portland. It's a useful tool if we get similar possibly connected vandals or idiots pissing about. They/he seem/s to have left now so hopefully he won't be back or will contribute properly next time. Does anyone know how to get the IP address from the new user creation log? there must be a way to do this & it'd help to tie newly logged in users to anonomous IP addresses. AllanHainey 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Once a username is signed up for they are protected by our privicy policy. So in effect you a more anomynous with a username then without. The only way to find the IP of a account onwner is with checkuser privilages and it should not be done without good reason. Even then you cannot publish the IP address of the account owner but only reveal if was a match to the suspected sock puppet or not. Sometimes it is inconclusive. The only person on Wikisource that has this ability to my knowledge is Yann; as all stewards do. There are people at other projects with checkuser privledges, but most of them believe they should only use it within their own project. In fact, the last time I needed to ask I had to pull in someonelse to ask for me and I had to get the info third hand. They suggested we should get checkuser for someone on Wikisource. Although Yann does have it, it would be nice to also have someone with a bit more western of a time zone to have it too. Especially since he is been mainly active of the french domain lately and may not be aware of issues here. All this is accurate to the best of my knowledge and represents my expierences but I could be completely wrong. Particulary since I recieved most of this info over IRC.--BirgitteSB 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Universiy of Maine

There is ongoing vandalism within the range (130.111.0.0 - 130.111.255.255) belonging to the University of Maine. I have been blocking them for 24 hours as they vandalize.--BirgitteSB 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be safe to say that these are sockpuppets? I'm getting really sick of these IPs.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand all the technical stuff but it could be the same person who each time he connects to the University network is assigned a new IP adress from somewhere in the the range they own. So if we blocked one of those addresses long term any random person connecting at the University of Maine could be assigned a blocked address. If any of that is wrong could someone more knowlegable (Pathoschild) correct me.--BirgitteSB 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that each computer in the UoM library/computerlab will have its own IP address, at least that's how it worked at Dundee University, and the vandal will just be swapping computers. I wouldn't be worried about blocking long-term, if someone at UoM wants to edit wikisource they can just get a username & will be perfectly able to, though if they then vandalise we can block that username. AllanHainey 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There has ben discussion on Wikien-l in recent days about this. It seems to be a Wiki-wide attack. Apwoolrich 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible personal attack

I just got this at my talk page: "You're the Copyright Nazi, so I figure if I can get you to say it's not violation, it's likely safe .... Sherurcij 07:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)" Calling "Copyright Nazi" sounds politically offensive.--Jusjih 11:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you take it up with Sherurcij first before bringing it here. I agree the use of the term Nazi can be offensive, though it could just be a (poorly judged) humorous way of saying you're strict on copyright issues. One problem with wikis is that all users have different cultural reference points & words/phrases which could offend one might mean a lot less to others & be commonly used. I'd clarify with Sherurcij what she (for some reason it sounds a female name, but I may be wrong) meant & let her know if it caused any offence. AllanHainey 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Allan. Talk to Sherurcij first. Not everyone uses the term "Nazi" as personal attacks. Oftentimes it just means someone who is very strict about a certain thing. It carries no connotations of the actual Nazi Party (at least in the mind of the person who used it), even though it might be offensive to the person who received it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just checked Wikt:Nazi and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Nazi but could not find your described use, possibly new. I cannot waste time talking back to her about this possibly sensitive thing. If we do not want copyright problems jeopardizing this project, we cannot be too lax. This is why I call it a possible (but not definite) attack.--Jusjih 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I also know of the expression Foo Nazi, which means someone who strictly follows rules regarding Foo without compromise. The most well-known example is the w:Soup Nazi from the comedy Seinfield.--BirgitteSB 04:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm...I think we'll just say that you and I come from different cultures, and this was a misunderstanding of intent. As Birgitte said, w:Soup Nazi, w:Grammar nazi, w:Feminazi and others ("fashion nazi" and "open source nazi" don't seem to have Wiki articles) are just frequent "tongue-in-cheek" jibes. My allusion was to seeing you as one of the people most concerned about copyright, hence why I was asking for your help on deciding the copyright status of a letter. (I acknowledge my own knowledge of copyright is dismal). The fact the letter happened to be from a German officer was just coincidental, as you'll notice from my Wikipedia userpage (Or to a lesser degree My wikisource one), the majority of my writing is about little-known members and divisions of the German SS/Wehrmacht. I apologise if offence was taken, but I think it's a harmless enough comment, especially since I was acknowledging your superior knowledge over my own :Þ Sherurcij 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (PS: I'm a he, not a she...not sure why people always tend to assume instinctively otherwise online, and just on a "wth..." note, it would always make more sense to drop somebody a note on their talkpage, instead of running to Admin Noticeboard. It's the equivalent of just going "Erm...what?" if you think you heard something offensive in a conversation, doublecheck what the person said, before bringing in the w:ACLU ;)

You may edit Wiktionary if you know something with reliable sources.--Jusjih 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

69.26.98.194

Caught some vandalism by 69.26.98.194 on The Emancipation Proclamation and reverted to previous version.

On a side note, although Spacebirdy's additions are useful almost all of them are marked as minor edit's. Someone may want to drop them a note about abusing marking changes as minor. - illy 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pathoschild, thanks for moving this to the right place for this. - illy 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

150.176.38.253

Vandalism on God Bless Fiji. Already reverted. - illy 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)