text:
Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy proposal

Comments
Good stuff, I like the proposal...I'd just like to make a short thing for information:

Putting a time delay on creation of accounts from blocked ips:

Pros: Potential contributors on blocked ips can make accounts and continue editing.

Cons: Potential contributors may be deferred and not willing to wait, determined vandals may be willing to wait.

Approval of accounts from blocked ips:

Pros: Adds a human element into the process, thus making it more accurate in most cases.

Cons: We need to find people to approve these accounts.

Nothing!

Pros: Less work for all of us.

Cons: Easier for vandals to get around IP blocks.

— Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  20:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I added your comments to the page. Martin  22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the proposal, too. Hope it will evolve into a policy.

I've added a proposal to use captchas as another solution for problem 1; hope that's ok.

--Chrissi 12:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes thanks! Martin  16:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea in general, but then again, if you follow my opinions, I don't really think we need anonymous editing any more at all for en.wiki. - Taxman Talk 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a great proposal. I hope that it will be put into effect.--Conrad Devonshire 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many cons
Personally, the consequences of this policy heavily outweigh the pros. The entire spirit of a wiki is to allow anyone to edit, and if this policy takes place, the entire AOL IP range, plus multiple other public use computers, universities, and libraries would most likely be blocked except for registered accounts. This restriction is contrary to what Wikipedia is — a free encyclopedia that anyone, whether non-registered, registered, admin, or Jimbo, can edit. In addition, this policy would not help counter vandalism; in fact, in my opinion, it would actually encourage it. Determined vandals would simply create an account, and once the account is blocked, create another account. Now, I'm not sure about the technicality of this, but there are two possibilities here - that the new registered account is auto-blocked, which would mean that we're back at the original type of block, or two, the account isn't auto-blocked, which means that vandals could create account after account. Under the old block, new accounts under the same IP would be blocked; however, in this system, they wouldn't. Thus, admins would have to use the old type of block to effectively block a vandal. Now, we're back to square one with the original block. (I hope that made sense! :-)) So, IMHO, I feel that this proposed idea would be more trouble than it's worth, and actually assist Willy and his counterparts. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That is a helpful description of the cons of the policy, however I would disagree for 3 reasons 1) The majority of vandals are not determined, 2) At the moment nothing stops these vandals at all, so the fact they can make a new account (which can also be blocked) is fairly inconsequential. 3) Wiki's policy of "anyone can edit" is more severely breached when a good user is blocked because they use an IP of a vandal.

 * Of course if someone can think of a good way of deterring creation of vandal accounts, then that would be even better. thanks - Martin  22:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * p.s. An IP address that was causing a lot of vandalism could of course use the old type of total block. Martin  22:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If an IP address is blocked and then someone creates an account under that IP address, is the account automatically blocked? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If you mean at present then yes they are automatically blocked, if you mean under this proposal, then no, but the proposal is of course under development! Martin  22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand this, we can decide what we like here, but it will be given no effect until the devs write the code. Or is the feature already in MediaWiki, but disabled or something? -Splash talk 22:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, thats right, but according to Tony Sidaway "Technically it's easy", and at bugzilla that this is based on he seems to have already implemented it at a test site. The difficulty is in the politics. Martin  22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not just the politics. The issue for me is whether it makes it harder or easier to deal with vandalism. I fear making vandals more likely to create accounts will make their changes harder to spot. Anon edits raise a red flag of "look at me, I might be vandalism" - you'd lose (some of) that. I'd consider testing of some kind to see whether the net effect (vandals deterred - vandalism harder to spot = net effect) is positive or negative. Try it for a week, maybe, see how it goes. Rd232 23:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, true. What would be interesting is if we could estimate how many new accounts are made from these kind of IP addresses, if it is 100's then it would be too difficult to monitor them all, if it is only a few then we could "approve" them before making them active. Or having a time delay, of say 2 hours, before the account becomes active would also put off the vast majority of vandals, and would of course only affect a very small proportion of potentially new ediors. We could also require a valid email for users to register from these IP addresses, but that is probably too difficult for most to swollow. Martin  23:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I like this proposal, but IMO it should be used sparingly rather than being the new standard for IP blocks. This should be used like in the case that Martin presented (User talk:209.167.234.2) so that an admin can unblock the IP indef and reblock with this new type of block, allowing legit users to continue editing and still blocking vandals. I hope that made sense... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the present kind of block would always be the standard, in fact this kind of block would be used rather infrequently, the major impact would be on AOL and similar ISPs (not sure how many there are...), after that it would just be the odd school etc. Martin  09:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It was my understanding and hope that this new kind of block would vecoem the standard, adn the presnt kind of block would be reserved for only the most serious situations, after the new form of block proved ineffectual. Otherwise there is littlke point in this proposal. In general we dopn't take more drastic action untill less drastic has been proved ineffectual. The new form is a less drastic action than the current form of the block. DES (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My understanding of what Martin says is the new kind of IP blocking will be used for addresses that are shared, the old kind for ones that aren't shared, and that if we don't know, then we default to the old kind (which might be changed in response to emails from blocked users). If the new kind of blocking is a success, the it would be possible to revisit the question of which is the default.  I agree with this, on the principle of not running before we have yet walked. --- Charles Stewart 17:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At the very least, IP's known to be shared (AOL, netscape, and the like) must defualt to the new kind IMO, or I don't feel i can support this proposal. I think that if we don't know, we should defualt to the new kind, on the principle that we use the less drastic remedy first. Ther should no doubt be a limite try out period whil we make sure that the new blocks work correctly technically, but that is just an implemetation detail. DES (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely, plus, just for clarity, I in no way think that all shared IPs should be blocked, it is just for situations where we have tried to use the old form of block but then realise it causes to much damage and then have to unblock and let the vandals back to work. Martin  18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand people saying that this will not reduce vandalism because determined vandals will just get an account. 99% of Wikipedia vandalism isn't from "determined vandals". For every Willy on Wheels there are 1,000 dumbasses vandalizing wikipedia just because it's so easy. It's like keeping a stack of crayons next to every painting in the Louvre! Rigth now we are virtually inviting vandalism. Let's at least make a minimal effort to do something about it. Kaldari 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "...It's like keeping a stack of crayons next to every painting in the Louvre!"— you have just described my new Wikimedia proposal, I like to call it "WikiLouvre". :PKiaparowits 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Only tackles one aspect of Wikipedia's problems
I am concerned that IP blocking tackles only one aspect of Wikipedia's problems. I don't see how it can prevent sock puppetry. For example, I have dial-up accounts (i.e. dynamic IPs) with three different ISPs. Then there is the problem of editor conspiracies to promote a POV agenda.

A simple approval procedure for all edits would provide a safeguard against many types of abuse. Anonymous editors could still make contributions, but edits would have be approved before going live. Editor conspiracies could be foiled by withdrawing approval status from individuals who ignored warnings. My user page has a brief outline of how it would work, plus links to similar proposals that have been made before. -- Bookish 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone said that this would solve all Wikipedia's problems, or even more than one, but this seems like a good compromise solution to one pretty major problem (not being able to block shared IPs without excessive collateral damage). Your ideas can continue to be discussed after this is put in place, this proposal wouldn't stop yours from being made (although I suspect yours would/will get considerably less support). Petros471 20:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New type of page protection
Here's a related idea, which is mostly orthogonal to the current proposal, but intended to address the same problem. In general it makes sense to distinguish between registered users and anonymous contributors. For example, we have a problem with anonymous vandals coming in via closed proxies, which cannot (and should not) be blocked indefinitely. So how about a new kind of page protection which makes it impossible for anonymous editors only to edit a protected page? Like any kind of page protection, this would be a temporary measure which would allow good-faith editors to contribute while keeping the vandals at bay. The more general (but technically challenging) solution would be to have blacklists on a per-article basis to keep our certain editors, much like current blocks but restricted to individual articles. --MarkSweep ✍ 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Like any kind of page protection, this would be a temporary measure which would allow good-faith editors to contribute while keeping the vandals at bay.

 * Huh? Our current form of page protection only allows admins to edit; I think that excludes most "good-faith" editors and possibly includes some vandals. Brian Jason Drake 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your proposal (part one) is to exclude non-registered users; the existing system is to exclude non-admins. This sounds like yet another idea that would make the system even more complex without making it any more effective. Brian Jason Drake 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your proposal (part two) of blacklists sounds good but we should be able to manage them centrally (to prevent abuses of blacklists) or on a per-user or per-article basis. Brian Jason Drake 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, this page is hard enough to read without such cryptic headings as "related idea". Brian Jason Drake 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Errr, WP:SPP? Werdna648T/C\@ 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is in the wrong place
Given that this is going to involve a change to MediaWiki, this discussion really should be on Meta, not here. Meta already has several pages and discussions on this. See Blocking proxies that are schools, Anti-vandalism ideas, and several others. Uncle G 11:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely it is better if we decide our own policy, German, French, Italain etc. Wikipedias/Wiktionaries can have their own policies. I may be wrong but I thought it would be better this way, plus we are more likely to reach a consensus. Martin  11:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This page isn't about a policy. As well as being in the wrong place, it is mis-named.  As can be seen from the discussion above, the discussion is about what new mechanisms for blocking and what new types of blocks editors would like to have, not Wikipedia's policy on how such mechanisms (once they exist) should be employed. Uncle G 12:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is about how new blocking mechanisms could be employed on the english wikipedia. You can re-name if you want, if it moves to meta then I am sure nothing will ever come of it. Martin  12:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, I don't see a problem having a discussion here too. We might decide to not do anything, and if we decide it is worth pursuing, we can always go to Meta and say what we decided. Besides, the English Wikipedia has many more eyes perusing it, which is good when we're trying to brainstorm ideas and decide on policy. Tito xd (?!?) 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think User:Uncle G is right on this if the path taken is as I am seeing it, that the outcome is seen as a solution to an English Wikipedia problem, though I think it is too strong to say that "this is the wrong place" to discuss the matter. The English Wikipedia is not the only one subject to vandalism; it is the one most hit by vandalism in terms of volume and is also the most resilient to that vandalism (the more-eyes effect).  Vandalism on smaller 'Pedias likely has a disproportionately larger effect on quality and on non-English editor recruitment (this is conjecture and not based on personal experience, but seems logical).  Therefore, it is essential that the discussion here contribute to a wider MediaWiki-wide discussion that is trans-language and trans-Project. Courtland 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: use email authorisation
As an alternative automatic authorisation mechanism, it may be best to use email authorisation to create an account. While there are free email providers, it is nontrivial to generate lots of email addresses for most people, so it should be more effective than captchas and time delays in blocking vandals, and if the email authorisation is fast, it should be less deterring to good-faith editors than time delays. --- Charles Stewart 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like this, but I suspect there will be too many people who would oppose such an idea. Martin  16:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm curious how many people (vandals?) would use a service like mailinator.com. ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Captchas considered ineffective
It occurs to me that most vandalisation is not automated. Captchas provide no protection against this. I've put this as a con on the project page. --- Charles Stewart 18:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

For the love of God...
please support this proposal. This seems like the most obvious thing in the world and I can't believe we've gone for so long without this. Both of the problems mentioned on the project page are trivial, IMO. Especially compared to the hundreds of wasted hours this will save in vandalism we don't have to revert. Anonymous IPs from AOL and school systems need to be blocked. Those addresses are where virtually all of our vandalism comes from. Anyone who legitimately wants to edit can easily get an account and go at it (if we implement this solution). It's rediculous that Wikipedia's most dedicated editors are reduced to the role of vandalism police due to the endless tide of crap coming from those IP addresses. Let's reinforce our levies so we can stop cleaning up messes and work on writing a great encyclopedia! Otherwise I'm sure to drown in wikistress! Kaldari 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While I understand your opinion very well, and am one of the innocent victims of collateral damage (my school is 207.236.151.102, banned until school ends this year), and am myself in favour of this policy, I have to consider a few of the troubles:

 * It contradicts Wikipedia's open policy, especially in the case of AOL users, if not so much for school systems
 * Vandals can register if they really want to
 * Were people blocked from creating new accounts on an IP banned such, then decent users might be banned

 * IP semi-blocking might be overused, again violating wiki policy.

 * Even given all this, I am still in favour. The main problem is reaching consensus - Wikipedia operates by and for consensus, and we may not have this yet. I would call for ArbCom or something on this, but it's too big a step for me. This policy seems good, but it needs validation. I wish some admin would call for a test run! Nihiltres 14:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the vote be on technicalities?
I don't think that a vote on the technical choices to be made in implementing this proposal are likely to be very valuable, since few of us are well informed about anti-spamming and anti-vandalisation techniques, we are likely to be learning as we go in any case, and votes are not a good way of making technical choices in any case. I'd prefer to vote on whether to have this blocking policy at all, and leave the matter of how it is implemented to the people who will implement it.

I should emphasise that I don't mean that I think discussion of technical choices is a waste of time, only putting together a list of alternatives and voting on it. Rather I think the discussion of technical choices is likely to be useful to the implementors, but we should have just a three-way vote: --- Charles Stewart 20:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * no new class of blocked IPs
 * have pages blocking anonymous users, but freely allow creation of user accounts
 * have pages blocking anonymous users, and have hurdles for creation of accounts from restricted IP
 * I agree, let's leave discussion of the technical details to a later debate. Kaldari 20:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is pretty much what I intended when I started this up, but got a bit carried away!, I think your 3-way vote is a very good idea. However, how would we deal with a situation where, for example, the votes were split 20, 40, 40 (respectively), because there would be a consensus to introduce the measure, but split between the second and third options (if you see what i mean), I suppose the more conservative option would win. thanks - Martin  21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Something Even Better
Good proposal. Here is something even better. Whenever a non-registered user attempts to make an edit anonymously, let them click through a very short, clear and simple warning inviting them to create an account OR (if they already have one) inviting them to log in.

You guys probably don't have any idea how many new users completely overlook the whole login feature for months until they get into an editing conflict with people who start to complain that they don't have an account! Think user friendliness and usability. Make it easier for people to understand the advantages to creating an account. DutchSeduction 18:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I do like this idea, but it and the original proposal are not mutually exclusive, so maybe it could be considered as well as and seperately to the original one. thanks Martin  19:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not so keen. There are quite a few editors who deliberately don't create accounts, and even some who do most of their editing anonymously even though they have accounts (eg.  User:siroxo); I occasionally edit without an account for various reasons.  This proposal makes such editing more of a nuisance.  The case is made from time to time that we should not have anonymous editing.  Given that we do (apparently a point on which Jimbo Wales is firm), we should make it as convenient as possible. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This reminds me of some discussion around Template:talkheader, which led me to conclude that we need more flexible ways of presenting information to users after they've clicked [edit]. Different messages on talk and article namespace, for a start. Different messages for logged-in and anonymous. And user control over (some of) the messages, so they can turn them off as they wish (hopefully, as they gain experience and don't need them any more). Making a reasonably prominent message linking to Special:userlogin for anons would fit within this system, without requiring extra clicks (or, done right, taking up too much screen space). Rd232 23:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Several kinds of blocks
I think we want several kinds of blocks:
 * Blocking anonymous editing from an IP address without affecting registered users (the current proposal). This is a Good Thing, as it will minimize collateral damage. However, I think we also want to retain the current blocking mechanism:
 * Blocking an IP address unconditionally, which will affect both anonymous and registered users (the current status quo). This is useful for static IPs that, for one reason or another, attract vandals. For example, during the Sollog affair, the disruptive edits came initially from a small static IP range. If we have reason to believe (as was the case in that incident) that a single person (plus meatpuppets) is behind a static IP and is up to no good, then unconditional blocking of that IP is appropriate.

Here's where it gets a bit complicated:
 * Blocking a registered account without auto-blocking the IPs recently used by that account (often proposed).
 * Blocking a registered account plus auto-blocking anonymous editing from associated IPs. This is useful to the extent that auto-blocking is useful in general, but would result in reduced collateral damage. In essence, it would only apply in a situation where an account gets blocked, the user logs out, and tries to continue editing anonymously.
 * Blocking a registered account plus auto-blocking the associated IPs unconditionally (the current status quo).

One way this could be reflected in the UI would be to have:
 * Special:BlockIP for IP address blocks, with a check box (checked by default) "block will only disallow anonymous editing".
 * Special:BlockUser for blocking registered accounts, with three radio buttons "no IP autoblock", "autoblock IPs for anonymous editing", and "autoblock IPs unconditionally".

I think the way forward is to have more tools available, not just different tools. I agree with the core of the proposal: we do need different tools that would allow more precision, but, occasionally, the current blunt tools are still useful. --MarkSweep ✍ 21:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes please
After yesterday, I very very strongly support the idea of an IP-wide anon-only block. I was blocked four times in the last 24 hours because of an anon vandal who shares my IP. I spent quite a bit of the day waiting until I could get back online, only to be blocked again half an hour later. On a couple of occasions, I lost a fair number of subtle and complicated edits (I was busy changing over templates and categories). Any measure that allows for the block of anons from an IP while allowing registered users to continue to work gets my firm vote.

Interestingly I was contacted by email by another fairly regular user who obviously shares my IP. He too was more than a little fed up with what was going on yesterday. Grutness...  wha?  23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thatd be me (and thatd be she :). This would be great. please could someone do this? BL Lacertae 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A compromise
How about, instead of letting all logged in users edit via a blocked IP, only letting logged in users with more than say 100 edits edit from blocked IP? If we allow account creation from blocked IPs and give administrators the ability to "bless" (which would do the same as the account having more than 100 edits for the blocking code), new users who want to edit from the blocked IP can mail the blocking admin or mailinglist and get a working account. Vandals who pretend to be good-faith editors might get one or two accounts out of admins but these will be blocked soon enough, as an admin who blesses a new account will keep an eye on it until the editor has proven himself. --fvw *  00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would suit me - and probably also User:BL Lacertae (150 edits) and User:Supersaiyanplough (800 edits) - both of whom are at the IP that was blocked yesterday.

 * I think time is more relevant than number fo edits or maybe a mix of both, it is much easier to do 100 OK edits, than to wait say 2 weeks. Only a very dedicated vandal would pre create users 2 weeks ahead of a vandalism, but to do 100 edits you can do with some script or something, one day or even 5 minutes before your planned vandalism. Stefan 08:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone does 100 OK edits then gets out 5 bad ones and gets blocked (and reverted), isn't Wikipedia improved more than it is hurt?

 * BTW, User:CesarB came up with a possible idea - this is what he wrote on my user talk page:

''I have been for some time thinking about making a patch to MediaWiki to add a new user flag. Users with that flag would be exempt from all IP blocks, both direct and autoblocks (but would still be affected by blocks on the user itself). It would be perfect for your situation. However, I am not sure that hack would be accepted. I made a (completely untested) patch to MediaWiki which adds the flag I described above. If you manage to convince the developers to include this patch or something similar, and convince a bureaucrat to add the flag to your account, your problems with being blocked when your IP address is blocked should end.''
 * Grutness...  wha?  04:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Patch updated. --cesarb 12:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Submitted as 3706. --cesarb 12:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Shared computer problem (from village pump)
(Section moved here from Village Pump Hiding talk 13:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

For users who edit from a shared computer, such as at a school or public library, I suggest mandatory registration in order to edit Wikipedia. I beleive this would help cut down on vandalism. Ereinion  18:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Vandals on shared IPs are definitely major problems. They contribute with significant amount of vandalism (my guess is around 1/2 of total) and they quickly learned they are unpunishable. When a good editor sits on the same IP as vandal his edits may get reverted by mistake. I really do not understand why such obviously useful help isn't implemented yet. Pavel Vozenilek 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, but how do we know which computers are "shared" ? StuRat 18:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with establishing that on a case-by-case basis? The whole reason is vandalism from shared sites (schools, librarires, etc.)  As we discover these problems add them to the list. -  Tεx  τ  urε  20:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll give you the list, if someone will block it :) Really if we just blocked schools, I think it would eliminate 1/3 of our vandalism. But that's just based on my anecdotal evidence. Personally, I think the benefits of blocking them would far outweigh the occassional useful edit. And I don't think I'm alone in this opinion. Of course it should only apply to anonymous edits and not to registered users from those IPs. Kaldari 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, current IP blocks also block any logged-in user editing from that IP. I have susgested a feature change to allow an IP block that would apply only to non-logged in users, as have othes, but we don't have that feature now. Besides, i would be leary of as broad a block as you suggest, although the ability to IP block ranges without preventing loggend-in users from editing would surely help with the AoL problem, and other simialr cases. DES (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yup, blocking some IPs except when registered would be a good move. I've already been unable to edit because I was using an open proxy (sometimes the only way to reach wikipedia from China). Flammifer 06:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem with all this, of course. Shared IP does not necessarily mean shared computer. I've been blocked before because someone else presumably living nearby was vandalising articles - yet I'm the only person to use this computer. yet the idea of public access computers needing special clearance to edit sounds reasonable - even if its only sokmething like ensuring that multi-use computer users must have non-anon user names. Grutness...  wha?  02:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, it sounds like in addition to "block IP" there should be "block Anonymous from IP".  Perhaps if there's an anonymous vandal using "block anonymous users from IP" should be the first step, and only if they keep creating new accounts do you block the IP completely.  It'd be better if we could limit things only as much as necessary, and no more.  This means a change in the software; does anyone else think this would make sense? -- Dwheeler 14:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds like an excellent idea to me, particularly for cases like AOL IPs. RSpeer 16:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

People seem to be rather confused by the benefits of logged-in vs non-logged-in users. Editors can be divided into two big groups: casual editors and devoted editors. Casual editors genearlly don't want to log in, and will not edit if they have to. Devoted editors are happy to log in, and may even edit only when logged in. The basic problem with requiring logging in as a way to cut down vandalism is that the percentage of good vs vandal edits are about the same for the two groups - i.e. the percentage of good edits from casual editors and from devoted editors are about the same, as is the percentage of vandalism from devoted and casual editors. So requiring logging in will just shift the balence away from casual editors towards devoted editors, but won't change the ammount of vandalism. However, the main difference between casual and devoted editors is that devoted editors, due to their devotion, generally make more subtle and complicated edits, either good or vandalism - tilting vandalism towards the subtle, hard-to-detect end is neither good to helpful for the wiki. That is why I don't support this proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * After yesterday, I very very strongly support the proposal. I was blocked four times in the last 24 hours because of an anon vandal who shares my IP. I spent quite a bit of the day waiting until I could get back online, only to be blocked again half an hour later. On a couple of occasions, I lost a fair number of subtle and complicated edits (I was busy changing over templates and categories). Any measure that allows for the block of anons from an IP while allowing registered users to continue to work gets my firm vote. Grutness...  wha?  23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See Blocking policy proposal. Martin 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus, what now?
OK, it looks like we have a consensus that the community wants the new type of blocking. However, it looks like we do not have consensus on implementing hurdles (much less what type of hurdle to implement). So I guess the next step is to officially request that the developers implement the new blocking technique and add it as an option on the Block IP page. After we've tested it out a bit, perhaps we will have a better idea of whether or not hurdles will be necessary as well. Kaldari 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion appears predicated on the belief that developers are bound to do as en: mandates. I'm not aware that this is how they work. I think the next step is to file a bug at bugzilla — which I think has already been done some months ago, although I don't know bugzilla well enough to go and find it. -Splash talk 20:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The bugzilla thing is linked to on the proposal page. A few other points; I still think we need the input of a lot more people before we have a consensus; en does not dictate what the developers do, all it means is we can say "this is what we would like, please implement it when you can" obviously they don't have to and obviously the implementaton would be determined by the developers, hence it really doesnt matter exactly what we decide we want, we just have to decide roughly what we want, althugh it deos seem that there is a lot of support for the idea in general. Martin  21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm not saying we have to hold a gun to the developer's heads. I'm just saying we should inform them that the feature is definitely wanted and let them know the results of the straw poll. Kaldari 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to help preparing a patch for this (more help welcome, especially from more experienced people). It will still need support from a core MediaWiki developer to get this into the codebase, but I think if there is a patch and consensus on en, chances shouldn't be too bad. However, to prepare a patch it would be necessary to know which kind of hurdle should be implemented (if any -- currently there is only a very small majority in favor of a hurdle). How about a new vote on that? --Chrissi 10:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The mediawiki folks can add whatever optional features they like. There is no consensus to use hurdles on account creation on the en-wikipedia site, so admins should not use this technology until a futher vote is called, but I am quite sure that there are many non en-wikipedia users of the mediawiki software who would be delighted to have these options at these disposal.  Implementing the technology, if it is as easy as everyone says, would be a good thing. --- Charles Stewart 14:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ideally implement a no-hurdle version, and as many variations of hurleds as you convieniently can -- then future discussion cna consider which versions to activate on en. DES (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --- Charles Stewart 02:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had started preparing a patch but I have to abandon it due to being overloaded with other tasks. I'm true sorry for that but I just won't be able to work on it in the forseeable future. I'm submitted the partial patch as it is right now at bug 550. Good luck to whoever wants to take on from here! --Chrissi 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort! Martin 16:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

False dichotomy
I just voted for both options above (feel free to count that any way you want). I think that, developers willing, completely configurable blocks with all sorts of different options are desirable. First block but allow new accounts, then block but disallow new accounts, finally, if that still doesn't work (e.g. the IP address starts hijacking accounts) then block fully. Mozzerati 14:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but should be done instead of IP blocks
Therefore i don't know how to vote. Sam Spade 19:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say anything but the last option will result in fewer IP blocks, and will put in place a series of case histories that you hope will favour the elimination of IP blocks, so whichever of the first two options you are least unhappy with. --- Charles Stewart 20:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll mostly repeat what others have said above: As far as the technical side (the MediaWiki software) is concerned, I think we want to have a wide variety of options available. IMHO it would be a Bad Thing to throw out one blocking mechanism and replace it with another one. Rather, there should be different levels of blocks that can be issued as warranted by the situation. For example: Dealing with one-off vandalism from an anon? Block the IP without locking out registered users, and allow creation of new accounts from same IP. Dealing with a persistent vandal, like the recent vandalbot?  Block the IP without locking out registered users, but don't allow the creation of new accounts from the same IP.  Dealing with a sockpuppet vandal?  Block the IP and also block registered users editing from the same IP.  Note that these are just examples of what could be done; my point is simply that different situations may call for different kinds of blocks.  It is a matter of policy to tell us what should be done.  For example, I'd argue for a policy of using the least intrusive, effective block.  In any case, we need to separate the technical aspects from the policy aspects.  The current poll seems to conflate these two. --MarkSweep ✍ 20:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since I formulated more or less the three options that Martin formulated, I'll explain what I had in mind. What the first option disallows that the second embraces is precisely whatever technical blocks are needed to get this option to work best: if you are suspicious of the mediawiki gnomes then you should vote for option #1,  and ask for new measures as they are seen to be necessary if you think the channels of communication work well, then  option #2 is the best bet.  The whole point of the three options is to separate the technical aspects from the policy aspects: the key is who is trusted to make the technical choices. --- Charles Stewart 21:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would agree with User:MarkSweep. The general rule should always be to use the least drastic and least intrusive form of block availabel that seems at all likely to do the job, and escalate as needed, IMO. DES (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification on policy
Should this feature be implemented, we should clarify in the blocking policy that this type of block may only be used in situations where a regular IP block can be used. IOW, no indefinite blocks of AOL addresses unless the community specifically extends the blocking policy to allow them.

Even then, I think we should be deciding indefinite blocks on a case by case basis, through the arb com or through community consensus, but unfortunately current policy allows this.

anthony 20:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

WHEN???
I've just had to unblock an anon IP (212.85.15.67) that was blocked for two weeks... because it blanket blocked almost an entire London borough, thereby blocking hundreds - potentially thousands - of good faith users. This is becoming intolerable. The straw poll on the article page has only two out of 45 or so votes against some form of this proposal. Isn't it time that it got beyond being a mere proposal stage and went to the next stage on the road to policy? Grutness...  wha?  23:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As discussed in the section above a patch would have to be submitted, or a developer would have to add the feature to Mediawiki. The feature request has been made. That would probably be the place to vote on the proposal or if you could get someone to write the code that would work. - Taxman Talk 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentiond further up this page, a patch was submitted by User:Cesarb in October. That's two and a half months ago - and my IP is still being blocked on average once per week. I repeat... WHEN??? Grutness...wha?  22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

When the developers are satisfied we're implementing a clean and correct solution, and if we want to take the time to gut the blocking mechanisms, so be it. A bit of patience and a bit of co-operation goes a very long way. 86.133.53.58 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * If they can't get a new system working any quicker than this, they should at least disable the defective system and we can take our chances with the vandals. StuRat 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong crypto solution for anonymous editors
I've just made another proposal with respect to managing vandalism, including vandalism from shared IPs. See User:Lunkwill/nym. Lunkwill 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Good proposal; this isn't however an alternative way to manage vandalism; this is an alternative barrier to creating new accounts. It should probably only be necessary if the proposed "barriers to creating new account"s turn out to be unworkably lax for systems like Tor. Also, it won't do any good for the "All of Malta Gets Banned" case: if Malta only has one IP, Malta only gets one token. --Victor Lighthill 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Human Validation
I would presume that the registration IP address of users is logged. What if all new users from a banned IP address must choose a current wikipedia user with more than one edit, a certain time since registration, a valid email address, and/or a registration from a non-blocked IP to validate them? Eko 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * We don't store the IP address a user registered under, no. We do store IP addresses that edits are made from, for an undisclosed and variable period of time. robchurch | talk 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocking should be turned off, not working !
I am a Wikipedian in good standing, having made thousands of edits and created several new articles. However, my ISP is AOL and I am continually blocked due to the dynamic I/P addresses which AOL assigns. This frequently happens mid-edit, with no warning, with disastrous consequences. For example, if I was moving a large section from one article to another, and delete it from the first article, only to be autoblocked before I can add it to the new article, that text is lost, and my actions now look like they were vandalism !

Autoblocking should be turned off until it can be made to work properly. Specifically, it should check for the ISP of the I/P, and not block any I/P under AOL or any other ISP which assigns dynamic I/Ps. Until they can get this working, autoblocking is doing more harm to Wikipedia than good and should be shut down, immediately. StuRat 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Options
If blocking a username:
 * Enable autoblock (yes/no) - blocks the user's IP whenever a blocked account attempts to edit

If blocking an IP or if autoblock is on:
 * Account creation (disallow/require confirmation/allow) - prevent account creation from a blocked IP address
 * Logged-in edits (allow/disallow) - allows edits from usernames accessing Wikipedia from a blocked IP address; does not apply to accounts that are specifically blocked

Policy enforcement
This is a table of how various blocking policy issues might be handled.

 * 1) Open/compromised proxy: Zombie computers and open HTTP proxies; not AOL or similar servers
 * 2) Other shared IP: AOL, elementary schools, etc.
 * 3) Vandalbot: A malicious bot or script
 * 4) Problem user: Banned user, vandalism, 3RR violation, personal attacks, malicious usernames, etc.
 * 5) Malfunctioning bot: A good-faith bot such as Guanabot that needs to be interrupted
 * 6) Bad username: Usernames like "George W. Bush", not malicious names like "User:Guanacο is a fag on wheels who should be shot in the head" — these should be treated as problem users.

Feel free to add suggestions and modify the table and related information. —Guanaco 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * What does "require confirmation" mean? A valid email address? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be a valid email address that is not already used by another account. —Guanaco 19:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Where to next?
We have overwhelming consensus to implement this proposal. What needs to be done next? Werdna648T/C\@ 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A month later, let me ask this question again: we have strong consensus for this proposal (though there is still debate about the form to be taken). Is there going to be action taken? Gw e rnol 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideas, implementation
This text has been copied to the wikitech-l and mediawiki-l mailing lists:

 * Since there's renewed interest in fixing the blocking problems (and bug 550), I thought I'd draw attention to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robchurch/Blocking_Mechanism/Notes which is a proposal for a fresh blocking mechanism.

 * I suspect this ties in a lot with the other current thread on this on wikitech-l, and no doubt the principles are identical or near as damnit. The precise implementation details are going to differ, but I expect we can bang our heads together and whack out some code soon enough.

I post it here since it's of direct relevance and interest to this discussion. I've shown the proposal to Werdna and a few other users on IRC too, and gotten positive feedback. Rob Church 11:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Werdna refers to me. I support this proposal. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Choose your own hurdle
Would it be possible to make a system where the user chooses which hurdle to do? That way, the hurdle that is easiest (time, email or captcha) for that user could be chosen. Perhaps human approval could be added as a choice for the user, too. -- Kjkolb 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cumulative autoblocks?
Why not have an autoblock from one user mean no anonymous editing, an autoblock from three users mean no account creation, and an autoblock from five users mean no editing whatsoever? [The numbers are arbitrary and plucked from nowhere in particular.] Werdna648T/C\@ 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From memory my IP has been autoblocked about twelve times by different users. I'd find it far easier to continue being an admin and editor if I could continue editing even after that. Grutness...wha?  23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

choices when bloking
This post contains several suggestions you could just use one of them.

Why not add the feature and let the Person Blocking the user chose instead of applied the change to all IP Blocks

We could have the normal Block with no edits (so IP’s only used for vandalism can be normally blocked)

We could have the Bulk Block that says Create an account.

We cold let anon create an anon account. You could Give the Anon a cookie and Block the anon who is Vandalizing with the cookie and if they delete the cookie they would have to reply for the anon account.

Accounts created from a blocked IP can have a Block At first Offence notice on there talk page and so if they vandalize they don't need a warning. The Block at first offence notice could be just like the IP notice on the bottom of IP talk pages and not be editable and could be program to go away after X edits and Y days so that if they create several accounts they would need to do X edits on each to get away from the notice to vandalize and if they do all their edits at once they still need to wait Y days and Both should be required so they don't create 100 accounts and wait Y days and start vandalizing.

You could also create a vandal watch list that all edits by vandal IP addresses show up on. Instead of recent changes patrol this would allow Vandal Patrol People to get to Vandalism faster in relativity to Normal Editors not looking for vandalism. It would also let people who want to find Vandalism get more of a chance each try--E-Bod 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Limit Block Length
I'd like to propose that this policy limit the amount of time a block of this type may be imposed on an IP for. My concern is that some admins may try to use this as a way to permanently block anonymous editing from shared IPs, such as AOL and school IPs. If a maximum length, at most a week for multiple offenses, were imposed, I would certainly vote for this policy, but until then I can't support it.- Polo  te t  03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I actually stumbled across this policy proposal when looking for the best place to suggest it, however I was going suggest the exact opposite to polo, that permanent blocks on certain high vandalism IP addresses be put in place. It is my (entirely unsubstantiated) belief that there are some people who use these proxies for vandalism in the knowledge that they can not be permananetly blocked. I don't think that anyone seriously considering editing is going to mind the hurdle of registering in order to prevent repeated serious vandalism. I think we should trust Administrators opinions, if they believe it should be permanent, then let it be permanent. Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Contacting schools Re:School IP vandalism
Please note this discussion on School IP vandalism which overlaps with this proposal. I suggest the two initiatives are dealt with together. Tyrenius 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's going to take time
Simple. I'm doing stuff to the blocking mechanism, indeed. But I'm not using the patches which have come before. I'm ripping it out and starting over.

And I intend to replace it with something well-planned and well-coded. Rob Church (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Good to hear you are working on it, however long it takes. Martin 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed, if this is being done as part of a more comprehensive code overhaul, then I'm fine with it taking time to do right. Better right than soon, as they say. Thanks for the update, Rob. Gw e rnol 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different topic -- a catagory for "users that need blocking"
I'm not sure if this is the right place to propose this, but it's related to the topic, so I'll give it a shot.

One of the annoying things about the current blocking system is we've got this nice hierarchy of warning messages, culminating in things like "The next time you vandalize a page, you'll be blocked without further warning". And then what happens the next time? If it's spotted by a non-admin, the best they can do is add another warning. So you end up with a user talk page full of "This is your last warning" messages, and nothing happens because an admin (who has the power to actually implement the block) hasn't noticed. It doesn't take long for the vandal to realize that he can get away with stuff since the warnings don't result in action.

So, let's make a new template, analogous to delete, called something like blockme. Any editor can place blockme on a user talk page, and that page will get added to Category:Candidates for blocking. It will be easy for admins to watch this category and implement blocks on users who deserve them quickly.

BTW, I fully support the current proposal. I lean towards the "allow creation of one account per hour per IP address" throttle mechanism, but would go along with any of the proposals, as long as something is done to stem the tide of vandalism. My proposal would be an additional tool that could be used. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with proposal of creating a new template blockme. List vandals on WP:VAND, 3RR violators on WP:AN3, etc. Vandals must be warned, 3RR evidence must be presented, before a block is made. A template will not be any help in any situation actually requiring a block, and is begging for abuse. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

another related topic - getting accounts from IP addresses with huge numbers of users.
I have been trying to get an account from Singaopre (one IP address, ~4.3M people), but the "only 6 new accounts allowed per 24 h" rule...

surely there can be another rule for IP addresses with lots of users? perhaps coupled with a "hammer of vandals" setting for a bot like Tawkerbot2, so that if then the bot automatically blocks the account for at least 15 min, or indefinitely if the user offends again.
 * the user is from a problematic IP address
 * the account is new
 * the bot catches the account vandalising something,

202.156.6.54 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

identd
The one resounding complaint of such a proposal is that potential new Wikipedians are slightly discouraged from making contributions due to the perceived "fuss" of making an account at first. While I agree with the proposal, even if it in fact does deter some anonymous editors, I believe that any move towards relieving this problem is beneficial to the community. I'm sure many of our first edits were made anonymously as I know mine were.

While, it has been argued on both the IRC and Wikimedia front that identd is by no means completely reliable, I still think that it could be of some use, were it to be used collaboratively with trusted organizations with shared IPs. Organizations, such as colleges and universities - where Wikipedia is often referenced and considered an important resource - could set up identd to work with their current user system if one is available.

Anonymous edit actions would immediately identify the IP address as not only shared, but as a semi-trusted organization that has identd installed and maintained. The Wikipedia server would then send an ident query to the organizations and log that response with the edit along with the IP, thus providing another level of identification where little is currently available.

This would help with selective blocking where it was once unavailble without registration, while remaining relatively transparent to our potential new editors. No fuss.

Obviously, not all organizations require unique logins and even less would be willing to manage it with identd. However, I know for a fact that my college has the former and that students often reference Wikipedia articles in their work. For the those that would use this system, there would be an obvious benefit to both Wikipedia as well as those collaborating organizations and its users. --Roy Laurie 08:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

'''I have a suggestion for the blocking policy that may address one of the cons. Limit the creation of new accounts from "banned IP address" to one per week...or one per fortnight, whatever. This limits the amout of damage a vandal can cause while allowing legitimate users the ability to create a new account from any IP. This also can be automated, and doesnt require human/time resources that could be better used on Wikipedia.''' XM 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A separate partial blocking proposal
People interested in blocking proposals may wish to check mine at the village pump: Main-space only blocking option for low-level vandalism. It's suggesting that low-level vandals only be blocked from the "main" namespace, rather than talk and the like. Andjam 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Article specific
It would be useful ot be able to block all proxies, schools, and AOL users that are not logged in for specific pages, such as those that get vandalized by revolving IPs. It could be a 3rd protection option, kind of like semi. Voice -of- All  03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

from Category Shared IP discussion page
Suggestion - as I use two library systems that have IPs repeatedly blocked: could a three level entry system be introduced (ie username/password/place of origin = Xlibrary etc)? This would enable Innocent Bystanders to get in from certain areas of shared IPs (as the Wikivandals won't know where is allowed).

It gets annoying for IBs who wish to correct minor mistakes in passing etc to find themselves repeatedly blocked - and seeing the number of blocked IPs might persuade people to do other things.

Please transfer this to an appropriate discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs)

(originally posted here)

title: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy proposal


text:
The Rover (novel)

The Rover is the last complete novel by Joseph Conrad, written between 1921 and 1922. It was first published in 1923, and adapted into the 1967 film of the same name.

Modern critique of the novel is mixed: many critics find worth in it, but do not consider it one of Conrad's better novels.

Plot summary
The story takes place in the south of France, against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Napoleon's rise to power, and the French-English rivalry in the Mediterranean. Peyrol (a master-gunner in the French republican navy, pirate, and for nearly fifty years "rover of the outer seas") attempts to find refuge in an isolated farmhouse (Escampobar) on the Giens Peninsula near Hyères.

The story is about Peyrol's attempt at withdrawal from an action- and blood-filled life; his involvement with the pariahs of Escampobar; the struggle for his identity and allegiance, which is resolved in his last voyage.

The plotline involving Escampobar is a retelling of the tale of Acis and Galatea. The young maiden, Arlette, is made to marry the murderer of her parents, Scevola; Scevola desires to kill Peyrol after mistaking him for Réal, his rival in love for Arlette.

Trivia
Conrad placed on the title page an epigraph taken from Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene:

 * Sleep after toyle, port after stormie seas,
 * Ease after warre, death after life, does greatly please

This also became Conrad's epitaph.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Rover (novel)


text:
Talk:A (kana)

Oy vey this is pathetic.
I will clean this up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GigaJew666 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:A (kana)


text: Talk:I (kana)

title: Talk:I (kana)


text:
Trout Fishing in America (duo)

Trout Fishing in America is an American musical duo from Houston, Texas. The members are Keith Grimwood (vocals, bass guitar, upright bass, fiddle, piano) and Ezra Idlet (vocals, guitars, banjo, bouzouki, percussion). Both musicians were previously members of the folk rock band Wheatfield, also known as St. Elmo's Fire. They took their name from the novel Trout Fishing in America by Richard Brautigan. The duo has released 24 studio albums through their own label, Trout Music. Trout Fishing in America is known for varied musical styles, with albums alternating between folk rock and children's music, as well as the contrast between Grimwood's and Idlet's stage presence. In addition to their music, Trout Fishing in America holds songwriting workshops with children. Four of their albums have been nominated for Grammy Awards.

History
Guitarist and vocalist Ezra Idlet was attending college in San Antonio, Texas, on a basketball scholarship when he decided to perform music instead. He worked at a dinner theater in Houston, Texas, and then joined the folk rock band Wheatfield, also known as St. Elmo's Fire. Bassist Keith Grimwood, a native of Alabama, originally performed in the Houston Symphony and chose to join St. Elmo's Fire in 1976 when the symphony went on strike. When several St. Elmo's Fire gigs in California were canceled, Grimwood and Idlet began performing together on the streets in order to earn money. They also performed for patrons of a local restaurant and entered a local talent competition.

When St. Elmo's Fire disbanded in 1979, Grimwood and Idlet officially began performing and recording as Trout Fishing in America. They took the name from the Richard Brautigan novel Trout Fishing in America. It was also at this point that the duo moved back to Texas. The two released their debut album You Bore Me to Death in 1979 through their own label, Trout Music. Shortly after its release, keyboardist and vocalist Rom Rosenblum joined Grimwood and Idlet. Drummer and vocalist Orville Strickland joined the lineup in 1981, thus making Trout Fishing in America a quartet. He appeared on their second album, Hot to Trout. Both Rosenblum and Strickland left shortly afterward, reverting Trout Fishing in America to a duo of Grimwood and Idlet. They released two more albums, Yes, the Fish Music in 1987 and Stark Raving Trout in 1988. At this point the duo began performing shows for children and their parents, as opposed to their previous shows which were mostly held in bars. These children's shows included songs such as a cover of David Egan's "When I Was a Dinosaur". Twelve songs from their first four albums were reissued on a compilation called The Dusty Dozen in 2018.

The duo began recording an album of children's music titled Big Trouble in 1989. In addition to a studio recording of "When I Was a Dinosaur", this included original compositions tailored to children, such as a nursery rhyme mashup called "The Window" and the original "Lullaby". "When I Was a Dinosaur" received regular rotation on the Dr. Demento radio show after its release. The recording of Big Trouble overlapped with their studio album Truth Is Stranger Than Fishin', a folk album released in 1990. It included a cover of Emily Kaitz's "The Day the Bass Players Took Over the World" and John Gorka's "Prom Night in Pig Town". Big Trouble was ultimately released in 1991. The title track is about a child who makes excuses for destruction done to the family house in the parents' absence.

1990s
After Big Trouble became popular among fans with young children, Trout Fishing in America began releasing more children's albums alongside their existing repertoire of folk music. Their 1992 album Over the Limit, one of their folk-oriented releases, was named by the National Association of Record Distributors (now American Association of Independent Music) as Independent Pop Album of the Year. The album included several session musicians and other personnel. This included drummer Mitch Marine and keyboardist/guitarist Carl Finch, who also produced the album. Grimwood played both bass guitar and upright bass, while Idlet played both acoustic and electric guitars. The two wrote most of the album by themselves except for "Sing It One More Time Like That", also a cover of David Egan. Also by this point, the duo relocated to Arkansas. In 1993, Trout Fishing in America was approached by representatives of the television network Nickelodeon to create a television pilot called The Trout House, but it was not picked up for a series. This was followed in 1994 by a pair of albums targeting both demographics: Mine! for children and Who Are These People? for adults. Terri Langford of the Associated Press wrote of these two albums that "sometimes it's hard to tell which CD is for which target group" while speaking favorably of the duo's musical diversity.

They returned to folk rock for 1996's Reel Life, a mix of live and studio recordings. Once again, Grimwood and Idlet wrote most of the album themselves, excluding three cover songs. These were of Homer and Jethro's "Don't Let the Stars Get in Your Eyeballs" (a parody of "Don't Let the Stars Get in Your Eyes"), Gordon Lightfoot's "Ode to Big Blue", and Little Feat's "Dixie Chicken". Finch and Marine also played on some tracks on this album, while session musician Milo Deering contributed on steel guitar and mandolin. Writing for the Cedar Rapids, Iowa Gazette, Rebecca P. Lindwall praised the album's instrumentation, as well as the "homespun" lyrics of the ballad "Lightning". This was followed by 1997's My World, another children's album which the duo recorded in Nashville, Tennessee. After it was 1998's Family Music Party, their first live album. Paul Collins of AllMusic wrote of this album that it was "a fine addition to any parent's collection of children's music." In 1999 the duo released the album Closer to the Truth. While this was one of their folk albums, Idlet noted that "there's nothing on it that a kid couldn't hear". It peaked at number 26 on the Americana albums charts of Gavin Report. Tom Infield of The Philadelphia Inquirer thought the album displayed the duo's musical influences and variety. He also noted that the duo's music had become popular on WXPN, a college radio station in Pennsylvania which at the time had a show dedicated to children's music.

2000s
The children's album inFINity followed in 2001. This accounted for the duo's first Grammy Award nomination, in the category of Best Musical Album for Children, at the 44th Grammy Awards in 2002. In addition, the American Library Association named it a Notable Children's Recording. Ronnie D. Lankford Jr. of Allmusic described the album as "fun music for kids and adults". 2003's It's a Puzzle was also a children's album. At the time of its release, Sony Hocklander of The Springfield News-Leader noted the popularity of children's albums such as Kenny Loggins' Return to Pooh Corner and Jerry Garcia and David Grisman's Not for Kids Only, and thought that Trout Fishing in America's music would appeal to fans of those albums. The title track featured a number of tongue twisters, while Grimwood's wife Beth co-wrote the track "Why I Pack My Lunch".

This was followed a year later by an album of Christmas music titled Merry Fishes to All. Reviewing this album for AllMusic, Lankford praised the duo for writing original content instead of covering traditional Christmas songs, while also finding influences of reggae and jazz music in the arrangements. At the time of its release, Trout Fishing in America were playing over 100 shows a year. In 2006 they released another live album titled My Best Day, which was also issued on DVD as a video album. By this point, Fred Bogert had taken over as their producer. He occasionally joined them as a backing musician, playing guitar, mandolin, and cornet. Bogert also contributed to the recordings of My Best Day. Both Merry Fishes to All and My Best Day were nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Musical Album for Children. In 2007, Trout Fishing in America released a five-song extended play titled Who Knows What We Might Do, which was available exclusively through their website or at concerts. In 2008, Trout Fishing in America released another album titled Big Round World. Musicians from the Louisiana-based dance group Bamboula 2000 contributed to this project. The duo promoted the album with a concert at Red River Revel, an annual music festival in Shreveport, Louisiana. It accounted for their fourth and final Grammy Award nomination, again in the category of Best Musical Album for Children. In addition, it topped National Public Radio's 2008 list "The Year in Music for Kids", an annual compilation of recommended children's albums by that organization.

2010s
After a number of children's albums, they returned to folk rock with 2010's Lookin' at Lucky. This was their first "adult" album since Closer to the Truth eleven years prior. Jonathan Takiff of the Philadelphia Daily News rated the album "B+", as he thought its songs would appeal to people who found humor in growing older. Although Trout Fishing in America recorded fewer albums throughout the 2010s, the duo continued to perform across the United States at venues such as museums and schools. They returned to the Red River Revel in 2013 to promote their next album of children's music, Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers. By this point in their career, Grimwood noted that they had been performing long enough that they were beginning to play music for the grandchildren of some of their earliest fans. Idlet had begun to play banjo in concert as well as guitar, while Grimwood began to play fiddle as well as string bass and bass guitar. The album's title track included a number of tongue twisters, while Idlet stated that the track "My Sister Kissed Her Boyfriend" was intended to be "annoying" to children. In addition, the track "Don't Touch My Stuff" was inspired by the duo having had equipment stolen from their van while at a concert in Texas.

The duo returned to folk music with 2017's The Strangest Times. Prior to its release, they performed some of its songs live on the radio station KUAF in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Grimwood played fiddle on the track "Quiet Alleys", and Idlet played bouzouki on both the title track and "Where Did Everybody Go?" Grimwood said that he considered "The Strangest Times" one of his favorite songs the duo had ever recorded due to its "driving beat" and the "real things" in its lyrics. Trout Fishing in America continued to incorporate further instrumentation into their live shows, such as Idlet covering "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" on banjo. They also began to look for songs from their earlier albums which they thought had been forgotten by fans, such as "Big Boys in Bad Shape" from Closer to the Truth.

Trout Fishing in America took a brief hiatus from recording and touring in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the members, the pandemic kept them separated from each other for 37 days, the longest hiatus of their career. Because they were unable to tour, they decided to resume writing songs together, in addition to performing songs on livestreams from their recording studio. Once they felt it was safe to start recording together again, they began preparing songs for their next album Safe House. Once again, Idlet played bouzouki on the album as well as guitar, banjo, and percussion, while Grimwood played bass, fiddle, and piano. Trout Fishing in America promoted the album with concerts in Texas once pandemic restrictions were lifted enough for them to resume touring. The duo also promoted the title track with a music video uploaded to YouTube, which features pictures of both members' families.

Other works
In addition to their albums and tours, Trout Fishing in America conducts songwriting workshops. During these, the duo encourages children to provide ideas for songs. The tracks "My Best Day" on inFINity, "Alien" on It's a Puzzle, and several tracks on Big Round World were all inspired by comments made by children during such workshops.

Trout Fishing in America has also written two children's books with accompanying CDs: My Name Is Chicken Joe and Chicken Joe Forgets Something Important. Both books were published by Canadian publisher The Secret Mountain, and illustrated by Stéphane Jorisch.

Musical style
Trout Fishing in America is known largely for their children's music, although many reviewers have noted the appeal of their music not only to parents, but also to adults who do not have children. While their early work was more conventional folk rock that often contained adult themes, the duo said that they chose to record more material suitable for children after both of them became fathers themselves. Specifically, "Big Trouble" was the first children's song they wrote. Grimwood also noted that due to this song's success with fans, schoolteachers would often attend their early concerts and encourage them to perform more children's music. By the release of inFINity, Grimwood had a teenaged son while Idlet had a son and daughter, both of whom were in college. Once the duo's music for children became popular, they initially dedicated some shows specifically to children's music and others to folk music. However, they ultimately decided to play "all ages" shows that mixed both styles. Despite this, the duo noted that they tended to avoid love songs or songs with longer solos if they saw that more children than adults were in attendance. Many of the duo's performances include audience participation. For example, on the song "My Hair Had a Party Last Night", Idlet encourages children in the audience to tousle each other's hair.

Tom Infield of The Philadelphia Inquirer thought that the duo were able to include a variety of influences in their music due to them mostly handling distribution and production by themselves instead of through a major record label. He noted influences of Lyle Lovett, Bruce Springsteen, The Band, and Gordon Lightfoot in songs from Closer to the Truth. Of their music, Andrew Griffin of The Town Talk thought that the duo's vocal harmonies and musical influences would help make their children's music appealing to adult fans as well; in particular, he thought the track "Wrong Right" from It's a Puzzle sounded like a 1960s pop song. A 1995 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch described the duo's music as "not pedantic, nor does it pander to children, but merely deals with topics that kids can relate to or those that will make them laugh." Grimwood told The Springfield News-Leader in 2003 that he intended to write songs that captured the imaginations of children and did not "talk down" to them.

Many sources have also highlighted the significant difference in height and personality between the duo's two members: Idlet is 6ft 9in and Grimwood is 5ft 5in. Of this difference, Jason Ankeny of AllMusic wrote that they "delighted children with their rather arresting physical appearance". In relation to their height and stage presence, an uncredited article in the Kent County News also described Idlet as "playful and extroverted" and Grimwood as "serious and reserved".

Discography
All releases under the Trout Records label.
 * You Bore Me to Death!, 1979
 * Hot to Trout, 1983
 * Yes, the Fish Music, 1987
 * Stark Raving Trout, 1988
 * Truth Is Stranger Than Fishin', 1990
 * Big Trouble, 1991
 * Over the Limit, 1992
 * Mine!, 1994
 * Who Are These People?, 1994
 * Reel Life, 1996
 * My World, 1997
 * Family Music Party, 1998
 * Closer to the Truth, 1999
 * InFINity, 2001
 * It's a Puzzle, 2003
 * Merry Fishes to All, 2004
 * My Best Day, 2006
 * Who Knows What We Might Do (EP), 2007
 * Big Round World, 2008
 * Lookin' at Lucky, 2010
 * Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers, 2013
 * The Strangest Times, 2017
 * The Dusty Dozen, 2018
 * Safe House, 2022

title: Trout Fishing in America (duo)


text:
User talk:APclark

Hello. I salute everyone. As for The Kindness Campaign, I'm working on it.

"Seven litre pilchard, climbing up the Eifell tower." Keep up the good work over at KC, do you know about Esperanza? Cheers  Ban e  s  19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, oops, should've quoted the "sitting on a cornflake" bit. Thanks for the b-day greetings. See you around the wiki!  Ban e  s  07:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tracy Beaker
I've read your comments over on the Tracy Beaker Talk page. There was probably no need for you to apologies or anything. I was probably just me being a bit grouchy the day I read your earlier comments. Hope everything is OK now. Evil Eye 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

S'okay, just glad to have a reply. 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened to my Babel?

CAoW
Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

howdy
Just passin' thru... Trekphiler 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, sure I'll help you. Just remember to inform me of anything new happening. 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the misunderstanding regarding the content moving. In the future, it would be helpful if you put in your edit summary that you are only moving the content, and not deleting it. Otherwise, it is impossible to tell your intentions. Sorry!  Wh e  re  (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Best User Page Project
Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.

All users are encounaged to display the BestUserPage banner on their User Page.

All members all encouraged to display the BUP banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.

We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.

Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam Fleming
Hi Aidan, I've only just logged in after a long absence so I'm sorry for not replying to your message earlier. Also sorry for missing the rfa poll.

About Adam Fleming, I have seen him occasionally doing continuity as well as Newsround and Sportsround. regards David -  Damson88 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Crazy
Hi, I feel happy to meet you. I am also almost crazy! --Bhadani 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

German Wiki
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._September_2006#Kategorie:Wikipedian_unterst.C3.BCtzt_Lesben-_und_Schwulenbewegung_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29

Some people try to delete category:Wikipedian support gay community: please help GLGerman 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

E-petition to the PM
I'm inviting you, as a fellow British Wikipedian, to sign the following e-petition to the Prime Minister.PJHaseldine 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is Tracey?
Maybe I'm missing something (it happens a lot) but why does the Tracey Beaker article list every character, and the actor playing them, except Tracey Beaker herself?

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Syrthiss (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject British TV channels
This is a message from Wikiproject British TV channels. Please visit the main project page to reconfirm if you are actively taking part in the project and update your details. Many thanks. Auntie Beeb (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Just passing through! I saw a message you left on Ortis Deley's talk page and thought your signature looked quite nice. :) londonsista  Prod  03:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:APclark/The Lord of the Rings: The Two Homers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:APclark/The Lord of the Rings: The Two Homers, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:APclark/The Lord of the Rings: The Eaturn of the Shorts

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:APclark/The Lord of the Rings: The Eaturn of the Shorts, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:APclark/Frodo Simpsins
User:APclark/Frodo Simpsins, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:APclark/Frodo Simpsins and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:APclark/Frodo Simpsins during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Say You Will (Kanye West song) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Say You Will (Kanye West song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Say You Will (Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Cletus Spuckler for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cletus Spuckler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cletus Spuckler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:APclark


text:
User talk:Shalford

Hey, what are you adding to Feudalism? An entire book? Don't do that! Adam Bishop 20:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shalford


text:
Officer Candidates School (United States Marine Corps)

The United States Marine Corps Officer Candidates School (OCS) is a training regiment designed to screen and evaluate potential Marine Corps Officers. Those who successfully complete the period of instruction are commissioned as Second Lieutenants in the United States Marines. Unlike the other United States military services, the majority of Marine Corps officers complete OCS to earn a commission; the exceptions are midshipmen from the United States Naval Academy, limited duty officers and warrant officers, and inter-service transfers. It is located at Marine Corps Base Quantico. Depending on the course, Officer Candidates go through either a 10-week (PLC Combined/OCC), or two 6-week courses (PLC) over separate summers, designed primarily to screen and evaluate candidates' fitness to lead Marines by placing them in leadership positions in a stressful environment. The 10-week course only happens after a candidate's junior year of college. Students are evaluated during 2–3 day garrison command billets at the company and platoon level, and squad and fire-team level tactical billets during field exercises.

History
Prior to World War I, Marine officers came primarily from the Naval Academy or were commissioned from the enlisted ranks. But as the Marine Corps expanded, it needed its own training pipeline for officers. OCS traces its roots to the "School of Application," established in 1891 in Washington, D.C. With the expansion of the Marine Corps for World War I, all instructional efforts were consolidated—first at Marine Corps Station, Philadelphia, then in 1940 at MCB Quantico, where they remain today.

Location
OCS is currently located at Brown Field at Marine Corps Base Quantico. PLC Juniors was at Camp Upshur through 1987 but was subsequently consolidated with PLC Seniors at Brown Field.

Selection and entry
Entry to the Officer Candidates School comes from several different commissioning programs:
 * Officer Candidates Course (OCC) for college seniors and graduates
 * Platoon Leaders Class (PLC) for college students with one or more years left in school
 * NROTC (Marine Option) in addition to regular NROTC program requirements, NROTC (Marine Option) midshipmen must pass a 6-week OCS course known as "Bulldog" during summer between junior and senior year. "Bulldog" is modeled after the PLC Seniors Course.
 * Enlisted Commissioning Program (ECP) for enlisted Marines with a college degree
 * Meritorious Commissioning Program (MCP) for enlisted Marines within 18 months of graduation (No longer an active commissioning program)
 * Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program (MECEP)

Officer Candidates must pass a series of tests before being admitted into the Officer Candidate School. An Officer Selection Officer (OSO), usually a Captain, meets with a prospective Officer Candidate. Upon completing a satisfactory interview, the OSO then makes the decision to move the prospective candidate onto the next step. The prospective candidate then must complete a short essay about why they want to be a Marine Officer, provide identification (usually a birth certificate and Social Security card), pass a background check, provide five letters of recommendation, and complete a physical medical exam.

After successful completion of these steps, the OSO may then conduct the Officer Candidate through a Physical Fitness Test. Upon reaching a score on the test that the OSO deems to be acceptable (a minimum first class score is necessary), the Officer Candidate then signs the contract (including the contract to attend the course, the fraternization policy acknowledgement, and the Marine Corps drug policy acknowledgement). Candidates choose to enter the program as either a ground, air, cyber, or law contract.

All of this information is sent to a review board, which will vote to decide if the Candidate should be accepted to Officer Candidate School. These review boards generally convene only once a month. After receiving a majority vote of acceptance from the review board, the Officer Candidate is officially accepted into the Officer Candidate Program and scheduled for a class.

Training
OCS screens potential officers using a program designed to test and assess the candidates by using the three graded categories of Academics, Leadership, and Physical Fitness. This includes evaluated events such as the leadership reaction course (LRC) and small unit leader evaluation (SULE). The Period of Instruction (POI) is divided into must pass events, such as hikes and the Endurance Course, and purely graded events that factor into one of the three graded categories, such as LRC and SULE. Candidates must maintain a minimum of 80% in Academics, Leadership, and Physical Fitness to graduate, as well as passing all the mandatory pass/fail events such as the Endurance Course. Events that must be passed for graduation are also given percentage grades that factor into one of the three graded categories. Regardless of course, the instructors usually include officers to handle most academic instruction, enlisted sergeant instructors (Staff Noncommissioned Officers taken from the drill instructor community) to conduct most of the day-to-day management, and other instructors (most often non-commissioned officers) to teach most field skills. Officer Candidates on both courses have many related expenses (including travel to and from Officer Candidate School, meals, and lodging) paid for them (after the conclusion of training), and have expenses for uniforms, books, and other supplies deducted from their pay. The Training and Education Command designs the program of instruction for OCS.

Platoon Leaders Class
The Platoon Leaders Class normally consists of two six-week training sessions taken between consecutive school years, which occur in the summers with no commitment during the school year. Young men and women at any accredited four-year college or university are eligible for this class.

Officer Candidates who attend the Platoon Leaders Class may opt for either the PLC Juniors/Seniors program or the PLC Combined program. In the Juniors/Seniors program, a freshman may attend the PLC Juniors course the summer between their freshman and sophomore years, then attend the PLC Seniors course the summer before their senior year begins. Sophomores can attend the PLC Juniors course the summer before their junior year in school and the PLC Seniors course the following summer. PLC Combined is a ten-week program for those interested in completing officer screening during a single summer after completing their junior year in college.

Training includes academic and field topics. Academic subjects covered include Marine Corps history, leadership, close order drill, weapons handling, and general military subjects such as land navigation, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, interior guard, moral and ethical leadership, and basic combat. PLC candidates need to be physically fit as the physical training is demanding; for example, Officer Candidates in the PLC Seniors course run and hike an average of 250 mi or more during a six-week period.

Those who opt for the Juniors/Seniors program will find that the divided program is tailored to provide progressive training. The Juniors course is an introduction into the Marine Corps, and allows the candidates to be evaluated and motivated for a possible commission. Physical training, small unit leadership, and basic infantry tactics are addressed, as well as significant academic instruction. PLC Seniors is an advanced course of indoctrination and contains similar physical training, small unit leadership, infantry tactics, and academics; but at a faster rate and with more instructor-induced stress. Those candidates who opt for the combined course cover the same areas of instruction, but it is integrated without the need to reevaluate candidates due to a year-long gap. NROTC midshipmen attend the PLC Seniors course for their final summer cruise, nicknamed "Bulldog".

Officer Candidates Course
The main alternative is the Officer Candidates Course, which is designed for college seniors or graduates and enlisted Marines, and consists of one ten-week training session. While the curriculum is identical to the 10-week PLC Combined session, OCC is held three times a year (winter, summer, and fall), and accepts only college graduates. Additionally, graduates of OCC are commissioned immediately upon graduation of OCS.

The Quigley
The Quigley is a legendary water obstacle that is currently part of the Combat Course at OCS. Lieutenant Colonel William J. Quigley, a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, designed it in 1967. It consists of a long canal with 4 ft cement culverts submerged in swampy water; candidates must immerse themselves and navigate through the Quigley without standing as a part of the OCS training program. The Quigley, as well as the Combat Course of which it is a part, however, is not a graded exercise and is not necessary for graduation.

USNA Leatherneck
Midshipmen First Class at the United States Naval Academy who express interest in joining the Marine Corps attend a four-week summer program in Quantico called Leatherneck after the slang term for Marines. They are evaluated on leadership, physical training and military skills, with physical evaluations including the Physical Fitness Test, Combat Fitness Test, Obstacle Course and Endurance Course. Midshipmen also learn basic military skills such as land navigation, combat orders, offensive combat tactics, and basic weapons familiarization, which are applied during multi-day field exercises including the culminating event when each midshipman is given the opportunity to lead a squad attack on an objective.

Further training
Officer candidates who complete OCS (and have obtained their college degrees) are then commissioned as Second Lieutenants and sent to The Basic School (TBS) at Quantico for six months of further training with other newly commissioned Marine officers from all other commissioning programs. At TBS, they receive the skills and knowledge necessary to lead Marines in combat; much like "every Marine is a rifleman", every officer is introduced to the skills necessary to lead a provisional rifle platoon.


text:
Talk:Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

Todo
References needed. For a "list of facts" like this article, the references are especially important. Jdorje 02:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Hermine was never called "Tropical Depression Eight", ever. In real time, it was upgraded straight to TS status, so its name was only Hermine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916070017/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks1851to2007-apr08.txt to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks1851to2007-apr08.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


text:
User:Mewtation

''"And what was the real lesson? Don't leave things in the fridge." -'' Spike Spiegel

A better page coming soon! In the meantime, check out the recently deleted (it was deleted a while ago) Nanaca Crash page, archived for your viewing pleasure. And its usefulness.

title: User:Mewtation