A new outbreak of vandalism on the Main Page led to all of its components being protected from editing by non-administrators, as attempts to maintain security through obscurity were set aside indefinitely.

One instance of vandalism happened Wednesday on the In the news template, whose content was briefly replaced with a penis image. This template, which easily has the quickest turnover of the main page templates in terms of editing its content, has frequently been targeted by vandals in the past as a high-profile target.

However, the most dramatic vandalism happened on Thursday, when the template listing Wikipedia's sister projects was vandalized with the infamous goatse.cx image. The vandal used HTML to spread the image across the entire main page. The Recentchanges header was also vandalized in similar fashion.

Compounding the problem was the fact that the servers were responding extremely slowly at this time. According to developer Jamesday, this was because a script was being used to create the downloadable database and image dumps. As a result, it took 29 minutes to revert the vandalism of Recentchanges and 35 minutes before someone was able to restore the sister projects template.

Protection of the entire main page is not an entirely new practice, as it had been regularly in place as early as 2002 in response to similar problems. The introduction of the current design last February, with much of the content being moved to templates, was accompanied by making the content open to general editing.

Before last week's events, the most recent instance of vandalism of this nature last November prompted the protection of images being used in the templates on the main page. Protecting an image prevents the file from being overwritten by another file, a technique that had been used to get offensive images substituted for the correct picture while it was being featured.

With that tactic prevented, vandals have simply resorted to uploading and editing in new pictures, as in the current situation. This led people to again revisit the question of whether any unprotected editing of the main page should be allowed. Ultimately, all images and templates used on the main page were protected, even the in the news and did you know templates, which in the past have relied considerably on participation from non-administrators. "In the news" has now adapted a subpage where non-admins can make suggestions for items to be included on the template—a system which has been in use at "Did you know" a lot longer.

With a busy week adding 11 new articles, Wikipedia's featured article collection passed a milestone on Sunday, as it reached the level of 500 articles deemed "particularly well-written and complete."

The 500th featured article was about John Day, an English printer during the Elizabethan period. It was promoted to featured article status Sunday, along with Death Valley National Park and History of post-Soviet Russia. Other articles promoted earlier in the week included Graffiti, Commonwealth of Nations, Battle of Warsaw (1920), Robert Oppenheimer, X Window System, Big Bang, Evolution, and the Krag-Jørgensen rifle.

The Battle of Warsaw article managed to win support in spite of some concerns, spilling over from a related dispute on the Polish-Soviet War article, that it was slanted toward a Polish patriotic point of view. The Polish-Soviet War article had been protected for a period of time in January because of an edit war over these issues. To help resolve concerns regarding the Battle of Warsaw article, a quote comparing it to the Battle of Tours (on the basis that it halted Soviet expansion into Europe much like Charles Martel stopped Islam from conquering Western civilization) was moved to Wikiquote instead.

The 11 new featured articles marked an unusually successful week in terms of achieving consensus to promote articles to featured status. Nearly as many nominations were promoted as failed last week (12 nominations failed), even though recently it has been typical that about two nominations fail for every one that succeeds.

Among the unsuccessful nominations was Page table, the last winner from the second edition of Danny's contest to seek recognition as a featured article. While both other winners, Turquoise and Battle of Alesia, had been successful, this nomination failed because of objections that it was hypertechnical and not readily understandable for an average reader.

Only one image was designated as a new featured picture last week. It is shown here—although be warned: you may find it difficult to locate the subject of the picture when looking at the photograph.

Continued concerns about the use of anonymizing proxy IP addresses prompted an effort last week to implement widespread blocks of such IPs, but technical problems forced the project to be put on hold.

These IPs, known as open proxies, have a reputation for being primarily a source of vandalism, as well as being used by blocked users to circumvent their editing restrictions. To deal with the problem, Fvw made a proposal to use a bot that would identify and block such proxies.

Routine blocking of open proxies originally began in February 2004 after discussion on the English Wikipedia mailing list. It was initially done by having the servers scan IP addresses when they attempted to edit, and blocking those that were identified as proxies. However, the regular scanning was disabled after a while. Since then, administrators have blocked open proxies when they are discovered editing Wikipedia, rather than trying to identify them systematically.

Fvw initially proposed running a bot to block proxies on 23 January. He offered to collect lists from websites that publish the IPs of anonymizing proxies, verify them and then block the IP.

Korath raised some concerns, first of all with having a bot use admin privileges, and the possibility that innocent victims of a trojan horse might get blocked. In response, Fvw pointed out that proxies would not be blocked based on scans, which would create fewer such problems, and that a real administrator would be likely to block the proxy if discovered just as the bot would. Nearly all of the other comments on Wikipedia talk:Bots were supportive of Fvw's idea.

When Fvw actually began running the bot last Thursday, however, new problems came up and forced him to shut down the bot. According to Jamesday, the current block-checking code is executed every time someone tries to edit a page, and the work involved is dependent on the cumulative total of blocks in place, with the potential to slow the technical side of the editing process considerably. Accordingly, he asked, "If you're aware of any blocks not in place to deal with actual vandalism, please remove them until the programming changes are known to be in place on the live site."

Improved code to deal with these issues may be in place in a few months. In the meantime, Fvw undid the bot-created blocks pending the application of a fix for the problem.

The Arbitration Committee wrapped up a busy week by confirming the imposition of a ban on Wik (also known as Gzornenplatz) for running a vandalbot in May and June of 2004. Along with closing three other cases, the Committee disposed of more than half its remaining caseload.

In a decision issued early on Monday, the Arbitration Committee pronounced that Gzornenplatz and Wik were the same person and should be banned. The ruling cited only the vandalbot as the reason for the ban, without mentioning the earlier arbitration cases brought against both accounts for engaging in edit wars without adequate discussion. Both accounts were quickly blocked after the ruling was made.

This marked the culmination of several months during which many people became increasingly convinced that Gzornenplatz and Wik were identical, but until recently no one had taken action on the matter. Even when it came up in previous requests for arbitration involving Gzornenplatz, the arbitrators had avoided addressing the question directly.

Part of the uncertainty in the case was whether statements by Jimbo Wales last June should be interpreted to mean that Wik was banned indefinitely for the vandalbot attack. Wales had announced that Wik claimed responsibility for the vandalbot, and said, "In my opinion, when a banned user makes direct threats of a "war" including elaborate proclamations as to how he's going to use a large number of proxies, sock puppets, whatever, it would be best for me to firmly and immediately declare that this is an extraordinary case and that the ban is extended indefinitely until appeal is made to the arbitration committee."

After consulting with Wales via IRC, the arbitrators determined that this amounted to a hard ban on Wik. They extended the ban to Gzornenplatz as well, based on technical evidence provided by the developers that the two were the same person, and also finding that they had "on numerous occasions exhibited identical editing habits."

Some users expressed dissatisfaction that Wales and the Arbitrators had dallied for so long on the issue of Gzornenplatz being Wik, when it had been increasingly obvious to those involved. John Kenney was particularly vocal about this, asking why the treatment of Gzornenplatz suddenly shifted, when neither the Arbitration Committee's knowledge of the facts nor the actual situation with Gzornenplatz had changed.

In response, Arbitrator mav explained, "The reason this has been brought up now is due to the fact that different factions in the community are fighting over it" (see archived story). The ruling also cited an explanation from Wales that "I long suspected this was Wik, and ignored evidence to the contrary out of a spirit of goodwill and a hope for reform."

The arbitrators did note, citing the precedent of Michael, that "all banned editors are theoretically redeemable." The possibility of an appeal using non-Wikipedia channels of communication was left open.

In other matters, the Arbitration Committee started off its week last Monday by ruling that Antifinnugor was banned from editing on Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages for one year, for failing to work cooperatively with other editors. He was also placed on personal attack parole for the same length of time. By Thursday he had already been given a 24-hour block for violating the order when he reinstated a fork of the Finno-Ugric languages article that had been redirected.

The next case to be resolved, with a decision issued on Thursday, resulted in equal bans on different grounds for Adraeus and Vfp15. Adraeus received a one-month ban for several personal attacks during the dispute, with the arbitrators particularly noting some attacks directed at Neigel von Teighen, an AMA advocate who had attempted to intervene and help represent Vfp15's interests.

Meanwhile, Vfp15 was banned for a month for disrupting the Charles Darwin article, based on failing to work with other editors and seek consensus about the inclusion of a trivia item (Darwin's shared birthdate with Abraham Lincoln). Arbitrator David Gerard commented, "Most ArbCom cases revolve around someone doing something stupid, but this one is a particularly stupid case."

On Sunday, the Arbitrators closed their one remaining holdover case from last year, involving Chuck F. Chuck F had previously been under a temporary injunction in the Reithy case, and the Arbitrators found that he had blatantly violated the injunction. For this, as well as vandalism and attempts to evade previous blocks, they imposed a two-month ban. To address underlying complaints about revert warring and failure to abide by the Neutral point of view policy, the ruling also banned him from articles "related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology," imposed a limit of one revert per day on an article, and added a general parole for three months.

These actions left the Arbitration Committee with only two pending cases, both opened within the past two weeks. Jayjg congratulated the Arbitrators on the mailing list for clearing their backlog.

Also, in other dispute resolution news, Jwrosenzweig was installed Sunday as the new chair of the Mediation Committee, after two weeks had passed with no objections to his nomination (see archived story).

While unveiling its new search technology last Monday, Microsoft not only took aim at its competition among other search engines. It also made a move with significant implications for Wikipedia by promoting the fact that it would offer Encarta content free along with its search results.

This marked a significant expansion of freely available encyclopedia content from Encarta, which previously offered only a limited selection of articles for free. Until now, premium content from Encarta had been limited to subscribers, with Microsoft charging $4.95 per month or $29.95 annually for the service. Some Encarta tools, such as homework help and some maps, will remain limited to subscribers.

Although Microsoft plugged the incorporation of Encarta content into its search engine as an innovation, it follows several others that have already used encyclopedia content from Wikipedia to enhance their search results. Wikipedia was included in Yahoo!'s Content Acquisition Program unveiled last March, and has been featured prominently in search results from Clusty since it released its beta in September.

Recently, Clusty has even added a new feature to its search results by providing thumbnails of Wikipedia images when available, a fact covered by Mark Hall of Computerworld in a notes column last Monday. And while Google makes less of an effort to boost the prominence of encyclopedia content in its search results, it recently switched its "definitions" results over from Dictionary.com to Answers.com, a service that provides not only dictionary definitions but encyclopedia content, both from Wikipedia and the Columbia Encyclopedia.

As Microsoft has done on numerous occasions previously, such as the browser wars, it is trying to attract customers and build loyalty by giving away some of its product. Use of Encarta for free through MSN Search is limited, however, to two hours, as shown by a clock counting down the time while you view the page. And if this is a deliberate strategy to compete with Wikipedia, it may not have the same effect as Microsoft's efforts against commercial competitors, since Wikipedia is also given away free.

Media coverage of the MSN Search launch frequently turned to Charlene Li, an analyst with Forrester Research, as an outside source to endorse the idea that incorporating Encarta into search was a big advantage for Microsoft. (Note: Forrester has published several controversial studies touting Microsoft products compared with Linux.) A Seattle Times article quoted Li as follows: "Here is this objective, fact-based information that you need," she said, "It's really hard to find that objective point of view" online.

When the launch of MSN Search was posted on Slashdot, the first post promptly brought up the comparison between Encarta and Wikipedia, asking, "should one use non-free but objective Encarta or free but biased Wikipedia?" This brought a rebuttal from Fennec, who pointed out Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. A number of comments followed debating the relative biases of the two encyclopedias.

Whether Microsoft will keep Encarta free of charge in the long run, or take other action to challenge Wikipedia, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, easier access to Encarta will give Wikipedians another handy place to check their facts when editing.

Last week, new signs appeared of organized efforts to edit Wikipedia to promote a particular agenda. While these efforts were not particularly successful, they did have an impact on Wikipedia and reignited longstanding fears that such groups could undermine the neutral point of view policy.

Angela reported on her blog last Friday that a dispute had developed over the Google article. She indicated that one of the participants, Alterego, had "accused two Wikipedians of being Yahoo employees out to discredit Google by editing Wikipedia" on his own blog. (Both blog posts have been changed significantly since they were first posted.)

The controversy over the article's content focused on two points: a delay in adding Abu Ghraib photographs to Google's image index, and the fact that one of Google's employees apparently worked for the National Security Agency before being hired. These two items were placed into a section together, apparently suggesting a possible connection. In reality, the google-watch item about the former NSA employee was asking the question, "Can you trust Google with a database of all the search terms you've ever used?" while the Slashdot story about the Abu Ghraib pictures did not mention the NSA at all. Google has also offered the explanation that its image index "is not updated as frequently as it should be."

Only one of the two users originally identified as Yahoo employees actually was one, however. This was Sundar, who works for Yahoo's software development group in India, and has posted this openly on his user page ever since it was created last March. He said that he admired Google, but thought the article was insufficiently neutral and wanted "to tone down the heaps of appreciation on Google (but only based on facts)". And while he participated in the debate on the talk page, Sundar was not involved in making any of the disputed edits.

Nevertheless, while the scenario of corporations manipulating Wikipedia content proved unfounded in this case, many people remain concerned about the possibility. As Jonathan Zittrain pointed out at the Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility conference (see archived story), a glance at the Wal-Mart article can make it fairly obvious that nobody representing Wal-Mart has attempted to edit the article.

A different situation also came up last week, with the more familiar touch of a small advocacy group guiding members toward Wikipedia to advance its particular cause. On the English Wikipedia mailing list, AndyL pointed out a bulletin board discussion on Stormfront where its Neo-Nazi members debated what to do about a supposed "Jewish bias" on Wikipedia, particularly with respect to Holocaust denial issues.

The bulletin board thread, which started back in December, started by criticizing Wikipedia's article on revisionism, and slowly gathered steam over several weeks. The discussion went back and forth between urging members to mobilize and edit Wikipedia, and considering an alternative of setting up their own wiki or otherwise forking Wikipedia content.

Then last Thursday another Stormfront discussion urged members to go to Wikipedia and vote to keep an article called "Jewish ethnocentrism." Participants in the deletion debate noticed a significant increase in votes from newly registered users after this point. The same issue was brought up in the original Stormfront thread on Sunday, this time offering advice on accumulating edits so that votes to keep would not be disregarded.

However, by then the debate had been on Votes for deletion for more than the minimum five days and had already run its course. Based on the strong support expressed for deletion, AndyL deleted the article before any organized countereffort could sway the outcome.

While Wikipedia has absorbed the impact of outside mobilization efforts so far, the mailing list discussion raised concerns about whether it could handle better-organized groups. Still, Jimbo Wales expressed confidence that the community would be able to develop new solutions for this as necessary.

The three-revert rule was debated extensively last week after long-time editor Steve Rubenstein was blocked for violating it.

The incident started with an edit war last Tuesday over the Race article between Rubenstein and Jalnet2. Jalnet2 asked for an administrator to block Rubenstein, and Dante Alighieri elected to block both users, since they had both violated the rule.

After he was blocked, Rubenstein posted a message on the mailing list, not asking to be unblocked but questioning the application of the rule itself. This prompted an extended debate, much of it about how literally to apply the rule. One of the main issues discussed was whether the rule deals with three reverts of the same content, or simply any three reverts of the same article, even if different material is involved.

Jimbo Wales commented that a fairly literal interpretation was needed to keep the enforcement process simple. While acknowledging that a mechanical rule was problematic, he argued that the rule "is necessary and useful *even though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects."

After his return to editing, Rubenstein was soon involved in another incident that led to a request for arbitration. This involved Acidmonkey, who began making nonsensical edits to several articles where Rubenstein had been working, including Race. Most of the other articles were those where Rubenstein had been disputing with CheeseDreams earlier, leading to suspicions that this might be yet another of CheeseDreams' sockpuppets.

Apparent sockpuppet activity proliferated last week, starting with Tigermoon, who engaged in conversations with CheeseDreams to give the impression of being a different person (however, as OneGuy pointed out, it was rather unusual that Tigermoon responded to an email from CheeseDreams on a Wikipedia talk page). After an initial block was reversed, Tigermoon reinstated the same edit for CheeseDreams, and was thereafter blocked for one week.

More accounts followed, using CheeseDreams' usual pattern of small variations on her username, and were quickly blocked. Because CheeseDreams edits from a dialup connection, the IP autoblocker had little effect.

A conclusive connection between Acidmonkey and CheeseDreams was not established, but Acidmonkey was blocked anyway simply for vandalism. Ambi reported that after consulting with a developer, "it looks more likely than not that this is someone trying to set up CheeseDreams," rather than being CheeseDreams herself.

Over the course of the day on Saturday, several more IPs were blocked for 24 hours as vandalism continued. But since the matter could be handled normally under the blocking policy, the Arbitrators concluded that they did not need to accept Rubenstein's request to hear the case.