Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Moroccan propaganda campaign?[edit]

According to this article some kind of officially sanctioned Moroccan is supposedly starting a concerted effort to shape public opinion about the relationship between the kingdom and Western Sahara. Here's the full quote:

One of these groups, the US "Morocco Board", today started a new propaganda drive targeting the global encyclopaedia Wikipedia, written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. According to the Morocco Board, Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom "are sadly not always accurate as fanatic pro-Polisario activists abuse of the free global encyclopaedia to push anti-Morocco propaganda."

The pressure group with royal funding thus is urging Moroccan all over the world to "participate actively to stop this." It asks Moroccans to enter Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom and the Western Sahara conflict and to edit them, giving instructions about how this is made and how they can avoid being banned by Wikipedia editing rules.

I honestly don't trust this claim at all without further verification, and looking at the history the Western Sahara article I don't yet see anything particularly alarming. But I thought I'd bring it up so anyone interested could keep an extra eye on these articles for the time being. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what would be our recourse if it COULD be verified that the Moroccan government (or some agency thereof) was advocating this sort of concerted action on behalf of one POV? Just wondering. GJC 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(fecking e/c)JoshuaZ, I don't think ThuranX was advocating that in THIS case; I think he was responding to my hypothetical. At least, I HOPE that's what he was doing... :) GJC 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The article seems to be presenting a rather biased view of the article in question, which is here. The "instructions about ... how they can avoid being banned" is basically: don't vandalize, use sources, discuss changes, don't break 3RR. Hardly gaming the system. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User requests speedy deletion of article of himself[edit]

FadulJoseA (talk · contribs) repeatedly requests speedy deletion of the article about himself, which is Jose Fadul. First, I don't think we can do that since he is notable... but I don't even know if he really is who he says he is. I heard before that he is supposed to email to the Wikimedia Foundation through an email address not hosted by the normal ones (such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail). Anyway, does anyone here think we should take action (if any)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he should email OTRS (emailing you would also be ok as long as you can reasonably confirm the email is really from him and not an impostor). Moreover, given the current lack of consensus about under what circumstances we will delete BLPs on request the article will need to go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This page may provide further background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick pass and removed some stuff that raised BLP flags - in particular an unsourced allegation of plagiarism. That aside, the whole article probably needs a good copyedit - reading it felt a tad "stalkerish", with lots of details about his early life and illnesses which seemed a tad out of place and to have too much weight, but that may just be me. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't delete it yet. He's been a bad Wikipedian, and now that I've started a SSP case, he is freaking out and trying to save face I think. Follow the progress here first perhaps. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadulj. -Freqsh0 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Moroccan propaganda campaign?[edit]

According to this article some kind of officially sanctioned Moroccan is supposedly starting a concerted effort to shape public opinion about the relationship between the kingdom and Western Sahara. Here's the full quote:

One of these groups, the US "Morocco Board", today started a new propaganda drive targeting the global encyclopaedia Wikipedia, written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. According to the Morocco Board, Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom "are sadly not always accurate as fanatic pro-Polisario activists abuse of the free global encyclopaedia to push anti-Morocco propaganda."

The pressure group with royal funding thus is urging Moroccan all over the world to "participate actively to stop this." It asks Moroccans to enter Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom and the Western Sahara conflict and to edit them, giving instructions about how this is made and how they can avoid being banned by Wikipedia editing rules.

I honestly don't trust this claim at all without further verification, and looking at the history the Western Sahara article I don't yet see anything particularly alarming. But I thought I'd bring it up so anyone interested could keep an extra eye on these articles for the time being. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what would be our recourse if it COULD be verified that the Moroccan government (or some agency thereof) was advocating this sort of concerted action on behalf of one POV? Just wondering. GJC 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(fecking e/c)JoshuaZ, I don't think ThuranX was advocating that in THIS case; I think he was responding to my hypothetical. At least, I HOPE that's what he was doing... :) GJC 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The article seems to be presenting a rather biased view of the article in question, which is here. The "instructions about ... how they can avoid being banned" is basically: don't vandalize, use sources, discuss changes, don't break 3RR. Hardly gaming the system. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User requests speedy deletion of article of himself[edit]

FadulJoseA (talk · contribs) repeatedly requests speedy deletion of the article about himself, which is Jose Fadul. First, I don't think we can do that since he is notable... but I don't even know if he really is who he says he is. I heard before that he is supposed to email to the Wikimedia Foundation through an email address not hosted by the normal ones (such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail). Anyway, does anyone here think we should take action (if any)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he should email OTRS (emailing you would also be ok as long as you can reasonably confirm the email is really from him and not an impostor). Moreover, given the current lack of consensus about under what circumstances we will delete BLPs on request the article will need to go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This page may provide further background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick pass and removed some stuff that raised BLP flags - in particular an unsourced allegation of plagiarism. That aside, the whole article probably needs a good copyedit - reading it felt a tad "stalkerish", with lots of details about his early life and illnesses which seemed a tad out of place and to have too much weight, but that may just be me. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit: Why do we have this section duplicated? :) ) Guys, don't delete it yet. He's been a bad Wikipedian, and now that I've started a SSP case, he is freaking out and trying to save face I think. Follow the progress here first perhaps. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fadulj. -Freqsh0 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange problem with attribution template[edit]

Resolved: Template wasn't protected in the first place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

{{StateDept}} is marked as a protected template, but apparently it is not protected. I didn't want to remove the template without notifying the powers that be, because maybe it should be protected as a high-risk template. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the template, as the page is not only not protected as noted, but it wasn't when the template was added. Likely a copy/paste issue. JPG-GR (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the high risk question, I have no idea what a "large number of pages" is, but that template is transcluded in fewer than 500 pages. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: Problem already solved...for a long time.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Every wikipedia article should display, at the bottom or on a linked page, all other articles that reference it. Surely it would not be hard to implement this. Please pass this message on to the wikiGods.

Erm, that would crash the servers and...did you ever take notice of the What links here link in the toolbox at the left. It basically does what you just requested to be implemented (without placing a long list of pages on the article itself).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unable to add content due to text-mode Web browser[edit]

I tried to add text to the discussion page, but it asked me to type in the text in a box I can't see because I'm using a VT100 emulator through a Unix shell and lynx to get to WikiPedia. It said if I can't see the picture because I'm on a text-only browser, I should come here to get assistance of manager, but this here is the only way I could find to express my frustration and solicit help. Please go to my Web site at tinyurl.com/uh3t, pass a 2-step Turing text to prove you aren't a spambot, to reach a MAILTO link, and please e-mail me very quickly now, before I go to bed, to tell me what text is in the box I can't see that I need to type to post my discussion text.

Are you trying to add a URL to a talkpage? That's the only reason I know of that Wikipedia would ask you to solve a CAPTCHA. --Carnildo (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

TWINKLE Readd Request[edit]

Resolved: - Dropping per admin comment.

Due to a "wiki scuffle" which involved TWINKLE, my access to that program and my monobook page were blocked. This was a month ago. Since there I have seen (like you) many cases of vandalism and it is difficult to revert and warn in a timely fashion. I would request, with admin blessing, that I be allowed to once again use TWINKLE. I would also ask that my edits, while using TWINKLE, be monitored so you (the admin) know I am using it correctly. Thank You...NeutralHomerTalk • December 2, 2008 @ 20:30

Twinkle is not a necessity in performing the actions you have mentioned. Moreover, you leave out that you've had Twinkle removed a total of three times in the past. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomerTalk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46
Are you asking to be monitored just as a voluntary condition for getting it back (similar to how editors must accept mentoring to be unblocked) or because you really don't trust yourself to make the correct decisions with it? If its the latter, why should other people have to spend their time watching you when it would be far easier to just not give TW back? Passive, after-the-fact monitoring only serves to prevent a bad decision become a string of bad decisions, its not a substitute for good judgment. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am asking that people watch my edits so you know that I am using the program correctly. I intend to use it correctly, but it is easier for you all to see with your eyes that "yes, he is using it correctly" then to take my word for it. - NeutralHomerTalk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:06
It looks like you've already been given enough chances with Twinkle to prove to everyone that you can't be trusted with it. You don't need another one. Just get used to vandal-fighting without it. That's what most of us do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
So much for trying to AGF. "Suck it up"...nice. - NeutralHomerTalk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:19
"Suck it up" isn't an assumption of anything; it's just a piece of good advice. Which of course you're entirely at liberty to ignore... -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I definitely oppose any restoration of the tool to Neutralhomer. Three times is a significant amount to have it removed. Additionally, he's done questionable reverting in the last month since the tool was taken away (see User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive2#Non-free_galleries where he reverted many of Betacommand's edits despite being in a major content dispute with him). Giving him the tool back would only aid such action, either way (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mr.Z-man - I fail to see why anyone should have to utilize their precious time to monitor your edits using Twinkle when Twinkle isn't a great necessity. Whether your recent reverts were appropriate or not (I haven't looked into it, don't see much need to), Twinkle isn't necessary for any vandal fighting you may be interested in doing. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If you take the time to edit more slowly and carefully, then everyone else isn't going to have to look over your shoulder. It seems like not having Twinkle is the ideal solution. Of course, my understanding may be limited since I've never used any tool more powerful than rollback. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Manatoba warriors[edit]

Resolved

This talk page was made by IP address 24.72.1.20, there isn't even an article for that talk page to be there. Most of the IP's edits [1] from a glance are vandalism and such. I request the deletion of this page (have a look at it) and the administrators can make their own decision on whether to block this IP or not. --Kushan I.A.K.J 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Vsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ...and ip blocked w/schoolblock. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Socks[edit]

There is a large water fowl population hovering around User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#HPJoker_complaint. Any help would be appreciated. MBisanz talk 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revision deletion request[edit]

Resolved: No BLP violation, as subject is dead.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete claims like this in Harold Holt's talk page history? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unecessary - Holt has been dead since the 60s (Or has he? OoOoOoOo!) ViridaeTalk 09:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
He's currently in Category:Disappeared people, for whom BLP applies. Andjam (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we can make an exception for somone who dissapeared in 1967. Besides - simply removing the offending material hides it from view. ViridaeTalk 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Threats of violence[edit]

This has already been seen at ANI, and relevant discussion is at WP:AE and the associated ArbCom case. This thread is not necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FT2 decided, as an administrator, to skip the block step in Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. FT2 also protected SA's talk page until the block SA was already under expired. I view that as an administrator having reviewed the situation and taken an appropriate interim measure. There is relevant discussion underway at WP:AE, which may lead someone to bring forth a suggestion for community sanctions or to just imposing sanctions under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be really good if some admins could actually help SA to police the mass POV-pushing of pseudoscience and fringe advocates instead of actively helping their bait and trap operation designed to run him out of town so they can rewrite Wikipedia in their own image. To describe that bit of sarcasm as a "threat" is ludicrous over-reaction. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear. SA appears to be the only one who is passionate about defending Wikipedia from the hordes of pseudo-scientific POV-pushers, of all colours and flavours. If he sometimes loses his cool that's unfortunate but understandable. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
SA is not the only person who cares about the issue. And he's probably more passionate than is productive - if he didn't take incidents so personally and responded more professionally he'd be far more effective at defending against pseudoscience problems.
That said, the rant there was uncivil but not anything that's credibly a real threat. Calling it a threat of violence was not a reasonable report here, John254... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed that ScienceApologist's threats [3] were "credibly... real" -- even threats of violence which have little prospect of being effectuated may nonetheless result in the offending editor's account being blocked indefinitely. Though ScienceApologist boasts that "I wrote a satire piece on my talk page that someone decided was a criminal threat. Now the police have called me... laughing." [4], the prohibition of threats embodied in our no personal attacks policy is far more expansive than the criminal law. John254 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some anon comments[edit]

<random comment>

God. The situation really stinks. Here's a rational, albeit very impulsive, defender of the mainstream view, and he's hounded by hordes who have their own agenda to advance. And there's also, for example (naming no names) a civil POV-pusher (hint: party to an ongoing ArbCom case) who actually admitted both on-site and off-site to pushing a POV-agenda, and who by his editing managed to bring a fairly important article down from FA and down from GA... And yet, because this POV-pusher remained civil throughout (and has not resorted to obviously stupid tactics such as sockpuppetting or incivility), he managed to remain unblocked, and free to continue his campaign; while the impulsive and passionate defender of the mainstream view is subject to all sorts of attacks...

</random comment>

(Sorry, need to get this off my chest) 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The pejorative designation of users as "civil POV-pushers" is inappropriate: civility is no vice. Users who are engaging in WP:NPOV violations or "POV-pushing" can be sanctioned on that basis alone. Threatening users [5] regarded as "POV-pushers", even "in jest", will accomplish nothing except to lower our level of discourse to the nastiness and trolling prevailing on Encyclopedia Dramatica -- especially since, if such comments were permissible, the "hordes who have their own agenda to advance" would likewise be allowed to issue counter-threats. John254 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Read the evidence page. The editor in question absolutely fits the description civil POV pusher. And he's not the only one. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing[edit]

Resolved: 24 hours for the IP, after further study. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have begun to rollback all edits by the IP address 82.4.220.242. The IP has done almost nothing other than add either incorrect or completely superfluous categories to articles, as well as incorrect death information. I began undoing each, but after realizing the pattern, I've begun treating these edits as vandalism and rolling them back. I just wanted to submit my work to a larger audience for review. This IP seems disruptive in the extreme to me, and I was also wondering if the IP should be blocked. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there a better place for my request? S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe spam, but I think this is a good place to start - you are right to come here and see what others think. As for me, well, are you sure the death information is incorrect? I don't mean to challenge your good faith, I really do not know, but the few cases i looked at, I didn't catch information to the contrary. But if you are sure the information is incorrect and not just missing a citation, I agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of them I'm sure of, and that, combined with the spamming of useless categories, led me to the conclusion that rolling back all the IPs edits had the most net benefit to the project. S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they continue. I recommend that S. Dean Jameson not go over 3RR when reverting because it's not obvious that this is plain vandalism. (This may be a slightly misguided version of good-faith editing). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    With the length of time this IP has been placing needless (and multiple) categories, and incorrect causes of death across multiple articles, and given the warnings he's already received, I feel it's safe to assume that they're not editing in good faith at this point. With that said, I'll let others revert the nonsense now. S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IP still at it[edit]

Still going... S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Messed up (I think) moves on Biblical history'/archaeology[edit]

I can't quite figure out what has happened here. We now have Biblical archaeology school but go to [6] and then click on the article. Then click on the talk page, there seems to be a problem with the associations and a loss of history. Biblical archaeology (excavations and artifacts) has lost its original talk page. Then there are these moves [7] so I am completely confused now. I'm exhausted so I may be missing something, but I have no idea how to fix this mess and get the history back and the talk pages in the right place. I'm not even sure the moves were discussed enough or make sense. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for a neutal clerk at Jehochman's ArbCom bid[edit]

Resolved: HDYTTO to the rescue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Jehochman's request, seeking a neutral clerk for his candidate page. Another editor started a threaded discussion beneath my vote. I requested a move to the talk page, but the other editor continued threaded discussion on the voting page. So I attempted to move the discussion to talk. Jehochman reverted and asked me to seek a neutral party to do the move. DurovaCharge! 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly; much obliged. :) DurovaCharge! 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright problem; help sought[edit]

Resolved: User:Michael Drew will be monitored for future copyvios.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While investigating a ticket at today's current copyright problem batch, I discovered literally dozens of articles that have been created with copyrighted text by the same contributor, spanning back to 2006. I have spent over three hours identifying and tagging these, cleaning a few of the easier ones but mostly just trying to get them identified and blanked for processing. The ones I've tagged {{copyvio}} are listed together here. (So far today, I've only listed this contributor's work. That means all of those articles with my username attached are his.) These problems persist at least until his third most recent article, with this duplicating the last three paragraphs of that. This, like some other infringement, had already been cleaned or overwritten by subsequent edits when I found it.

I have only looked at article's listed on this contributor's userpage. Any assistance from other admins looking into his other contributions would be greatly appreciated. I'm exhausted. :) I'm planning to ask the Wikiproject to help clean up the listed articles before they come "current" in 7 days, but that doesn't always bring response. I'd also be grateful for any assistance anyone here can offer with that, because I can already see that December 9th is likely to be a very challenging day at WP:CP.

I'm also requesting opinions on addressing this contributor. He has never (before today) received an official copyright warning, but he was called for "plagiarism" in August of 2006, here. He apologized and claimed that he had believed the material in public domain. Then he quietly continued copying text from that and other sites; as one single example, this article, pasted mere weeks after the above exchange. I'm all for giving second chances, but effectively this contributor has already been given one. I think he at least needs an occasional check from somebody to see if he's utilizing others' text. I don't really have time to follow through. I'm already committed to monitoring a serial copyright infringer from an ANI thread a couple of weeks back (here...and that one continues aggressively minimizing his infringement on one of those articles here).

So, fellow admins, what's to do? Should I seek additional eyes on his future edits from his wikiproject? Would one of you like to take it on? I will, of course, invite his participation here, but given the history feel wider attention is necessary regardless. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been editing hockey articles for quite awhile since we had a number of his pages deleted. I have been watching his edits since then, but I admit I wasn't looking for copy vios but rather notability. I will watch his future contribs and I am fixing his past copyvio'd ones since the players are notable but the info is obviously from a bad source. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If the articles were created by him, delete and recreate from scratch. That's how you suppose to deal with copyvios. Secret account 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Schoolblock?[edit]

Resolved: Template already in place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Never having done one of these before, I'll ask here first: do I need to do anything special or notify anyone in particular in order to implement a schoolblock? I've got a pestilential IP User:216.253.220.18 which resolves to "Harmony Science Academy" in El Paso. In the interests of both harmony and science, I've blocked them for three months (1-month blocks have had no effect) but I'd like to make it a schoolblock just in case. Thanks... GJC 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just put {{schoolblock}} on the talkpage – iridescent 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That was easy--especially since someone else already took care of it. :) Thanks! GJC 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist on Blackberry 8820[edit]

Resolved: Redirect created.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This page Blackberry 8820 can't be created, with a blacklist message ending here. I'd like to turn said page into a redirct to

List_of_BlackBerry_products. I'm also curious where I can look to find out how the page got blacklisted. Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't salted when I looked, created redirect for you. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

class assignment[edit]

Resolved: No action needed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a sort of heads-up -- I don't think any action is required at this point. Apparently there is a Neuroscience class at Georgia Tech, with about 60 students, who have all been given an assignment, for 10% of their grades, to either write a new Wikipedia article on a Neuroscience topic or expand a short one. They (or at least some of them) have user names that look like Gtg123x, and their deadline is apparently today. I've tried to get in touch with the instructor, but haven't heard back so far. I've also been monitoring the results as far as I can see them, and so far it looks like more good than harm, but of course the early results are likely to be the best ones, so we'll see. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, following the true college students' manifesto: wait until the last day. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Why put off until tomorrow what you can put off until one hour before class? JPG-GR (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Procrastination is only effective if you finish it on time.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a Buzzin'![edit]

Resolved: for now, the page is empty.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a buzzin' today with activity. A few more sets of eyes wouldn't hurt at the moment!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

help with closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport[edit]

Resolved: AfD templates removed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed this debate, and it took me a lot longer than I had expected to write my closing rationale. As a result I don't have time to clear the AfD templates off of the affected pages. Is there anyone out there with an automated tool that could help with this? Mangojuicetalk 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PHEW...after over an hour and a half of non-stop tag removing and tag adding I cleared through that horrendously massive list of nominated pages O.O. Did the first half manually and searched for scripts to help at the same time. Found a couple and tweaked around with them a little and was able to clear through the rest much easier. Hope that helped you ;)...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
And now someone will take it to DRV and you can put them all back… – iridescent 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh good go no...hope they wait at least a day.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
15 minutes later: WP:Deletion review/Active#July 29 in rail transport. :) --Amalthea 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about abuse by a WIkipedia Administrator??[edit]

Resolved: Complainant informed about WP:Dispute resolution--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What do we do if a WIkipedia Administrator seems to show inappropriate behavior, biased behavior, personal shepherding of a semi-protected article to make sure it keeps to their personal opinion on the subject -- even using insults towards a particular social group in Talk to keep the article to that one viewpoint?

In other words someone who never should have become an Admin and should be stripped of Admin privileges?

It's an absolute nightmare to think Wikipedia would let the wrong person have that much power.

And 10 times worse that the "review" procedure for this may consist of a few random other Admins (who may be friends with the problem Admin) glancing at the complaint and dismissing it with "nice try -- he's not doing anything at all wrong as far as I can see". (Which may not be far.)

Can I hope that there is a formal Administrator Review Tribunal, with the Admin in handcuffs behind the virtual wooden dock (not chuckling with his colleagues), and the citizenry testifying nobly about their abuse at the hands of the corrupt local official?

As Juvenal said, "Who will watch the watchers"?

76.201.171.230 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

All of us. Doesn't matter whether you're a bureaucrat, an administrator or an editor -- you keep an eye on every other Wikipedian and you call them on bad behaviour no matter who. The answer to Juvenal's age-old question is "We all watch each other". When we find a problem there are various things we can do to air the problem and see what other fellow editors think. ArbComm's not the only venue: in fact it's the last resort. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article describes what can be done. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this hypothetical? ArbCom watches the watchers. Wait, I know what you're going to ask: Who watches arbcom? Well, it's ArbComs all the way down. CIreland (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I can't think of any reasonable dispute resolution step before ArbCom though. Do you have any suggestions? Asking the Administrator to change his basic nature or resign from administration doesn't seem likely to be productive, and has big potential for subjecting me to abuse. Discussing with others how the Administrator might be asked to change his basic nature or resign doesn't seem likely to be productive either. Are there any established intermediate steps before ArbCom that I must take, before asking for an Admin to be stripped of privileges? Thanks!
75.36.158.243 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
Dispute resolution is pretty much a must. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Along those lines, if there's an actual problem with an actual admin behaving badly on some actual page, you're actually going to have to provide specifics at some point so that others can be "those who watch the watchers". Otherwise you're keeping the onus entirely on yourself, which you have found to be an unsuccessful approach. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I wouldn't be here without a juicy, succinct, and fully documentable actual complaint. : ) I'll see if there's anything feasible that I can do with Dispute Resolution and then try ArbCom. Does anyone have an archived example of previous Dispute Resolution where an editor wants an Admin stripped of privileges -- and actually got somewhere, with a good, documented claim? Everything there seems to be about edtior-vs-editor, and "making up and being friends".
75.36.154.163 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
Well, WP:RFDA has a list of admins who have had their privileges withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks to all of you. Would you please leave this thread as-is, here at this location, for however long an ArbCom review takes, as I am citing a link to it in my further efforts. Thank you. 75.36.147.96 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John

Unfortunately, these threads are archived automatically. However, it's relatively easy to keep an eye on this page for a few days and then check which archive subpage it ends up at.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I should note that the Arbitration Committee is supposed to be a last resort, after all the steps at WP:Dispute resolution have been gone through. Please don't go directly to them. Thanks, and good luck settling your dispute.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) As a bot cleans it periodically, that won't be possible. You should rather use a permanent link to this version of the page, including the section, i.e. [8]. Regards SoWhy 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Resolved: Improper block lifted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's long past time to review this. This is one of several "sockpuppet of Antidote" indefinite blocks made by Runcorn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (which can be found in xyr block log) that are not on either Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!. This account, for starters, was blocked in October 2006 for one article reversion, a request for sources on a talk page, and modifications to a to-do list on a talk page, apparently removing duplicate and processed items from that list. It and several of the other indefinitely blocked IP addresses are assigned to the University of Michigan. I wonder how many productive contributors at that university and elsewhere have been excluded from editing Wikipedia for these past two years because of these blocks. See the prior Noticeboard discussion for why these blocks are suspect. Please review. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Whatever the reason for the block, an indefinite block of an IP that was used for 8 minutes two years ago is unwarranted. I've unblocked it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath is premature in thinking that this is resolved. As I said, there are a whole load more of these blocks. Here are some more from Runcorn's block log from 2006:

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above IPs have been proxy-checked and unblocked. I'll take a double-check through Runcorn's block log later. There are more indef-blocked IPs in CAT:INDEFIPs, if anyone's looking for something to do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've now been all through Runcorn's blocking log, and there are no more indef-IP-blocks which aren't claimed to be open proxies. Most of the indef-proxy blocks probably also need revisiting, but then there's nothing new about that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom talk pages[edit]

I am writing to open a discussion that involves the intersection of two issues: the purpose of talk pages, and ArbCom procedures. I have a concern that arises out of an ArbCom case closed in October. I will explain the context, but I have waited over a month to raise this discussion because I do NOT want to rehash a closed case. My concern is with future cases, and I think we need to develop clear guidelines for future cases. I am raising the issue here because I think we need some wide discussion before proposing any specific changes to an ArbCom policy page.

Here is the background, but I emphasize that this is just an example; I do not want to discuss this particular example, just the implications of the deletion of talk page discussion for future ArbCom cases. In October ArbCom addressed a case filed by Thatcher concerning Slim Virgin and Lar. When the case was first opened, the proceedings were confidential because of checkuser issues (later, the concerned parties agreed to give up their rights to privacy). Perhaps in such cases there should be no talk page. But there was a talk page which implies that there is some appropriate purpose to talk.

I posted a great deal to the talk page for the proposed decision in the Thatcher-Slim Virgin-Lar case. I began with a set of questions concerning the wording of the presentation of the case. My questions did not address private or confidential issues, and did not require answers that would breach privacy or confidentiality (they were about wording and procedure and policy). No one from ArbCom ever responded to my questions. At the end of the month user:Newyorkbrad archived the talk and posted an explanation with instructions that there be no further talk. In effect, ArbCom was prohibiting discussion of the case.

I fully accept the fact that ArbCom on occasion needs to keep portions of its investigations confidential. I would have no objection if ArbCom archived any discussion that breached or threatened to breach privacy or confidentiality. But this is not what ArbCom did. ArbCom instead, in effect, prohibited any and all discussion on the talk page.

I beieve that it is wrong to prohibit any discussion of a case on the appropriate talk page. I realize that this belief and the need for confidentiality may clash. I am bringing this up because it seems to me that this situation will come up in the future. I think we need some proposals for policies on this regard, proposals that can be fully and openly discussed and decided upon by the community. Off the top of my head, such a policy would provide guidelines for what kinds of talk would be encouraged or permitted on a talk page, and what kinds would not. It would also provide clear guidelines for enforcement (i.e. the policing of the contributions made to the page). I repeat, I understand ArbCom may consider some kinds of talk to violate the integrity of the arbitration. I just do not believe that this can be sufficient cause to prohibit any discussion at all. The community - and ArbCom - needs clear guidelines as to what are the acceptable limits to talk, and the acceptable limits to deletion by ArbCom or Oversight. Articles, policy, and project pages all have talk pages for good reasons. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As experienced editors administrators - even as a disorganized, heterogeneous and frequently divided group of editors - provide one of the few meaningful checks on ArbCom power. We administrators have in my opinion an obligation to observe how ArbCom works, and comment on the fairness and efficacy of its procedures. I know that many editors currently have a host of concerns about ArbCom. I mean only to raise one specific issue which I hope we can discuss constructively. I hope we can come up with a set of constructive proposals relatively quickly, concerning this one issue. After this matter is resolved, perhaps others will want to raise other issues, but I ask that we focus on just this issue first ... just handle things one at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It would not be too late to raise the issue as a question on the various candidates pages, although perhaps an RfC would allow wider community discussion - while admins (even the inexperienced ones) have the means to collectively provide checks on the ArbCom, it should only be so at the behest of the community. As with ArbCom, sysops are tasked to serve and not lead. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do feel you have raised an important issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't ask any candidate because I frankly am not sure what I think is the best approach and wouldn't know how to gage their responses. I certainly wouldn't object if you ro someone else could turn this into a concise question to ask the candidates. I still think it is a good idea to have wide discussion. I'm not sure what page is liekly to attract a wider discussion than this though I would certainly welcome the views of any editor. Be that as it may, admins are not just admins, they are editors too! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This does seem strange, Slrubenstein. From what you say, there's been an unfortunate lack of courtesy. If the intention was that there should be no discussion of this confidential case, there should either have been no talk page or, perhaps better, a protected page with a notice or template explaining in broad principle the decision that there should be no discussion. Doubtless this wasn't thought about, but having wasted your time by effectively inviting discussion then ignoring it, there should have been the courtesy of an explanation and an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you'd raised. Obviously I don't know how far the posted explanation went, but it would seem sensible that there should be guidance that clerks opening a case should make the talk page situation clear. There's also the broader aspect of maintaining maximum community involvement and transparency, as much as possible giving due priority to the importance of privacy. A question to candidates might be a godd way of getting views on these issues. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, nobody really thought of the issue completely before things went too far on that talk page. Thus the unplanned and messy way things went down.
A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think. Talk pages and Workshop all too often just become a continuation and exacerbation of the disagreement under arbitration, and that is counterproductive. I think one of the conditions has to be that once an arbcom case begins, the fight stops, subject to blocking for the duration of the case. The arbcom is a deliberative body, and our role is not to have to police the interactions of the parties as they continue to squabble.
Tied into this is that parties in arbcom cases spend a large portion of their time while under arbitration trying to win the case in the court of public opinion, rather than by fixing the problem or even arguing their case well in front of the committee. This has been an issue particularly this year.
In a case like this, the issue was and is that parties to the case were carrying on the argument in public, while other parties could not defend themselves from allegations because it would involve bringing up matters that could not be discussed in public.
In my personal opinion, future cases of this kind must include more strongly worded injunctions to the parties that continuing the disagreement in public cannot continue. It is not desirable to limit the ability of the community to watch and make their views known except as absolutely necessary.
This ties into another issue with the arbitration process; increasingly, the AC is being drawn into situations where there is placed an expectation of rapid action and rapid decision-making. Committees do not do rapid action and rapid decision-making very well, especially a fairly large committee of sometimes wildly varying views, scattered worldwide and with full-time jobs and lives which mean we find it difficult to always be paying attention to the frenetic pace of Wikipedia drama.
The community seems to prefer electing Wikipedians of reasonable maturity and level-headedness to the AC, which increases the chance that we have jobs and busy lives that mean we can't always respond quickly to crises, real or imagined. (I do feel that many of the "crises" are only such because of the frenzied, over-caffeinated speed which some Wikipedians appear to operate, which leads to an intolerance for slower action).
The AC as currently constituted can make efforts to be more efficient, but notably every AC election elects a new slate of arbitrators committed to speeding things up, and things never speed up all that much. Better coordination mechanisms can certainly be employed, but I think this will make things that formerly took months take only weeks, and things that took weeks take maybe a week. It won't make the AC able to make decisions in minutes or hours with any degree of quality.
Therefore, I think, if the ability to make such decisions is actually needed, it must be through mechanisms that are different than the AC. What those might be, I'm not sure.
I think that in the end what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done. Unfortunately, nobody who'd be good at the job would want the job. Jimbo used to do the job, but it became too much for him, and that was years ago, when en.wp was much, much smaller - and many, myself included, feel that some decisions were made poorly entirely because the project, even earlier than that, grew to a size and complexity too hard for one person to quickly comprehend.
There are no magic bullets to good governance. Especially of a project like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Morven may well be right that "what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done," but I think that this possibility reflects quite poorly on Wikipedia. The community itself should be the source of policies and procedures, and this is the main reason I raised the topic here rather than asking ArbCom members or candidates - it is up to us to work out these things. I do agree with Morven that "A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think." I am happy putting the Thatcher case behind me, behind us - I am not sure if ArbCom was being discourteous by ignoring me, but I accept Morven's general explanation. I think Dave is right that if ArbCom wants NO discussion it should protect the talk page from the start. That said, I find it hard to imagine any case in which this could be so. i think talk pages are essential to the transparency and accountability of ArbCom. Now, it is perfectly reasonable as Morven suggests to insist that parties to an arbitration stop their arguments during the arbitration, commit to using ArbCom procedures spelled out on the appropriate project pages, and not bring their disputes to the talk pages. This would leave talk pages free for "meta" discussion about how the ArbCom case is progressing. What I mean is, and this is an off the top of my head suggestion, is that talk pages be reserved for case-based discussions of the arbitration process, that it be used to raise and discuss procedural questions.

We - I mean ArbCom and editors - need an agreement as to what kind of talk is and is not allowed on such pages. Just as talk on article pages must be about improving the article, I think talk on the ArbCom pages should be about improving the arbitration process. It is fair that we editors demand that ArbCom take such talk seriously and respond to it assuming good faith. It is fair for ArbCom in turn to expect such talk to be made in good faith and to be constructive in intent.

The bottom line is, if ArbCom has an unprotected talk page, then it must accept some kind of discussion by editors on that page. ArbCom is not a council of philosopher-kings or gods to hand down law from on high. It has to come up from us. I have forwarded one idea. I urge other admins and editors to join and widen this discussion. We need to generate ideas and proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that this is an important issue, and am glad he raised it. I'm sympathetic with his view that cases, even private ones, should allow public discussion about matters which are not, in and of themselves, private. However, I'm also sympathetic to the view that many of these discussions aren't particularly helpful; they, like the Workshop pages, are often simply the playground for very small groups of partisans to re-enact the battle that led to the case, or to act as each others claquers. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More eyes requested[edit]

Resolved: Accused user will do it himself.

here; I can't make head or tail of it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Mister Alcohol is an active, unblocked account, I don't see why we would delete or blank it at an IP's req. Point at OTRS/MFD. MBisanz talk 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have done that, but the IP is not forthcoming about details. I have notified Mister Alcohol of this thread. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jellydudes attempted outings[edit]

I want to make a mention of Jellydudes' attempted outing of an anon IP, User:69.182.20.148, on the associated talk page. I don't know if he's tried it elsewhere. Tealwisp (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like he does it a fair bit. Seems like more his being a jerk than actually attempting to out people. Nice to know that a sock has an obvious trait--makes it easier to find the new accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Move war[edit]

Resolved: Article move-protected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help monitor the move war at Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh. Despite a failed move request, the article has been moved back and forth over the past few days. Aecis·(away) talk 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I move-protected the article. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TFA Image[edit]

Resolved: User:Slowking Man isn't as absentminded as he thought he was, and we should all keep an eye out for unprotected images on the Main Page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Image:Zappa 16011977 01 300.jpg, which is on the Main Page, wasn't protected until I uploaded a local copy just now (it's now cascade-protected). I could be missing something, but there was no local copy previously, the image isn't protected at Commons, and yesterday's TFA image was protected this way, so apparently something hasn't changed on me and made doing this no longer necessary. It would be nice to have an adminbot to do this, as I'm not really fond of seeing various anatomical images when I start up my Web browser. If I did unknowingly screw something up, please tell me. —Slowking Man (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm seeing that other Main Page images aren't explicitly protected either, so I'm obviously missing something. Someone mind linking me to the software change or whatever it is? —Slowking Man (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Images in English Wikipedia no longer need protection before appearing on MainPage due to cascading protection. Cascading protection does not apply to images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons. This means that the images still need to be protected manually by an administrator on the Commons project, or uploaded to English Wikipedia to allow the cascading protection to work. User:Zzyzx11 used to protect MainPage images at WCommons. He stopped when User:MPUploadBot was inaugurated. However, User:MPUploadBot was blocked a few weeks ago. Since then, various MainPage Mopsters (most often it's User:BorgQueen, sometimes me and others...) have been manually uploading and protecting WCommons images when (or before) they appear on MainPage. No clue when User:MPUploadBot will be unblocked. So, if you see any WCommons images on MainPage, please make sure that they are {{C-uploaded}} to English Wikipedia. If not, cascading can only protect local edits, such as cats and FP templates, and vandals can upload junk at WCommons to spoil our MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, so I was right after all. Okay, thanks for confirming that I'm not totally absentminded. I'll try to keep an eye on upcoming Main Page images, and if any other admins reading this could pitch in, that would be great. —Slowking Man (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Halfricans[edit]

Resolved: Speedy endorsed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just speedy deleted Category:Halfricans as an attack page, because as the category page itself noted[9], the term is exclusively used to disparage its subject (people of half-African American descent). As another user noted, we wouldn't support Category:Uncle Toms or Category:Feminazi, and this seems to have some characteristics of those.

The speedy deletion seemed appropriate as the "general" criteria specifically apply all namespaces including categories. However I appreciate the speedy deletion of categories is rare, and this particular category may well be controversial. I've therefore brought this here for review, and am happy for it to be overturned if I've misinterpreted the policy. Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call as far as I am concerned. Did you comment to the creator? JodyB talk 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that's fine. G10 == General, not namespace specific. We can speedy delete from any namespace if the item in question is something nasty. Good call on this category. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't comment to the creator (User:Kilby6), but another editor has warned them about creating attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced it was really an attack page per se. I suspect he intended to create a category for Limbaughisms. In any case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB talk 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But see which articles were put in it. By all means WP:AGF that it wasn't meant as an attack, but it could be considered an attack and thus deletion was fine. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

86.146.233.61 / 24.90.237.107[edit]

Resolved: Speedily deleted under criterion G6.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Err...I'm pretty sure these shouldn't be in the main article space... CultureDrone (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Wikia[edit]

Resolved: Inappropriate venue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


What to do about comments from possible banned user at ACE?[edit]

Resolved: Sock of banned user blocked indefinitely and contributions reverted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb

I have no knowledge of the user or even the disputes at stake, but just wondering whether it was common practice to allow comments from a user who appears to be admitting to be a sock of a banned user. Brilliantine (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • What comment? who is the banned user? (This summary is necessary for the dull witted like me. If the answer was in the middle of that giant WP:TLDR paragraph, then I didn't read it) Protonk (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • NVM, I just rolled it back per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. East indeffed the account. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The funny thing is I don't generally agree with that policy, but there was something about that ramble that seemed to be disruptive as opposed to useful. Brilliantine (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't either. Honestly it seems pretty laughably unworkable. Most socks do hundreds of edits, usually good or neutral, before they are caught. I'm not sure why I would be expected to click "rollback" on all of them. However, it is nice to have it there, I guess. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive muscle power?[edit]

Can a few neutral editors with checkuser privileges and knowledge of Sikhs, Khalistan and Human Rights, please look into this case? I hope the following 3 editors are not being wrongly choked just because their povs and article interests are the same. I see that all their means of presenting data to tell why they are wrongly blocked are being cut: -

Beetle CT has asked for reconsideration on talkpage with some proof. Also check this ongoing resolution effort by some of these editors on the banning admins talkpage to get some perspective. Seems like before Irek Biernat and Singh6 could present facts like Beetle CT - Singh6 has been blocked again and now even the talkpage of Irek Biernat has been blocked stating "to prevent misuse". What talkpage misuse has Irek Biernat done? This new block on Singh6 and Irek Biernat is invisible one, which neither shows up in the page histories nor is listed on their respective user and talkpages, but only if their pages are in ones "watchlists". I can clearly see that muscle power had already forced these editors to compromise their personal information[10] [11] [ (which kinda reflects their helplessness). I have earlier editing experiences of these editors and feel that they are not uncivil or vandals by any means, but I cannot check if they are being choked without much proof. I have tired to get some valid information from the blocking admin YellowMonkey but the replies came about not so direct. Before we end up choking out 3 genuine editors by unleashing quick excessive muscle power, can we have some more admins look into detail? I've underlined detail with focus here because these 3 editors seem to have editing many topics which are against the POV of Indian Government, about custodial deaths and have been involved in many debated topics. Therefore, there is a need for looking into detail if that does not become the reason for the motivation of a block and choking out despite inconclusive evidence. Regards, --RoadAhead =Discuss= 07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Help at AIV?[edit]

Resolved

Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Semi-protection needed[edit]

The Man article is in much need of semi-protection again as its semi-protection has recently ended and the high level of vandalism has started once more. The article always receives high levels of vandalism when not semi-protected due to the subject of the article. Can this article, given the constant high level of vandalism it is subjected to whenever semi-protection ends, have indefinite semi-protection like the woman article? The article should be treated like those of country or religion articles which receive high levels of vandalism and are given indefinte semi-protection because vandals won't just disppear when the semi-protection ends. It's an article which will always receive high levels of vandalism if not semi-protected because it's not a current event which may draw attention then subside. Usergreatpower (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a high-level of vandalism. No edits today, some good and bad yesterday, nothing particularly requiring intervention. Nevertheless, you could still propose it at requests for page protection. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with User:Sceptre - could an admin familiar with him please intervene?[edit]

Over the past few days Sceptre has been continuing in behavior similar to that which has resulted in him being disciplined in that past, and as I'm not an admin and have been in personal conflicts with him before, I'd prefer not to get directly involved with him myself, but rather let an admin who's had more experience dealing with him take care of this. On the Osama Bin Laden article, he's been unilaterally removing sources from the article which cite individuals or groups that have referred to Bin Laden as a terrorist, claiming that the article calling him a terrorist is a violation of WP:BLP, and yelling at other users in his edit summaries such as here and here. (Nevertheless he's incorrect about the article factually stating that Bin Laden is a terrorist, as it only reads that certain groups/individuals have referred to him as one and cites sources to back these claims up.) I posted a comment about this on the article's talk page claiming that it seemed like he is trying to cause drama for drama's sake and is essentially acting like he owns the article by giving his own opinion on it more merit than the current consensus. In response, he accused me of "wikistalking" him (just as he's accused me and many other users of in the past, including one other user whom he edited warred with over this article, though just to be fair, the user did facetiously call him a "terrorist sympathizer" right before, which was also uncalled for). I'd personally like to stay out of this one since I've been in a few ugly conflicts with him before, but I think his behavior is uncalled for and is strongly reminiscent of the behavior with had him recently blocked for three months in the first place. If he keeps going on like this, I won't be surprised (or sorry) to see him blocked again, though this time I'd like to see him wait the block out, as it was rescended a few weeks before its expiration (which I thought was unfair considering that even while blocked, he continued to engage on his talk page in the same disruptive behavior that had him blocked in the first place, though that's ancient history so I won't go into it further.)--ParisianBlade (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've told Sceptre about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Without wanting to go into the shouting, which is unfortunate, Sceptre does have a point in that use of the word "terrorist" is discouraged. Wikipedia:Words to avoid says:
"The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article."
It should also be noted that this directive is the subject of a slow-burning debate on the related talk page, but there does not appear to be any consensus to overturn it at this point. Now, if anyone can be referred to as a terrorist, it's OBL, but Sceptre's edits, as far as I can see, are not unduly disruptive or incorrect, and in some cases are an improvement (such as changing "terrorist" to the more specific "jihadist"). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
Jihadist is actually extremely POV. It implies that Bin Laden's actions are a valid jihad. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Words to avoid doesn't apply here - it's not being used in the unqualified narrative - a sourced reference to say that intepol and other law enforcement agencies have him listed as a terrorist is just that - a sourced reference outlining the position of those organisations. If they were writing "the terrorist Bin Laden" he might have a point (which I cannot find in the history). Leaving aside the content issues, What I cannot take in good faith are comments like Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? ? Are we now allowed to make backhanded slurs on other editors as sexual predators? Sceptre wants to call notice to his status as a minor - great, he should go and sit in the naughty corner for a bit until he grows up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the "creepy" edit is here: [12] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
em? I lined to it in my post? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the content dispute itself, I haven't been keeping up with it on a regular basis and it wasn't my main concern. My main concern was the immature way that Sceptre is going about participating in the dispute (the yelling in edit summaries; the accusations of "wikistalking) which I think is very inappropriate. The dispute itself may actually be legitimate, but if so Sceptre should behave as an adult if he expects to be treated like one in my view.--ParisianBlade (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of conduct why Sceptre was blocked in the first place? And wasn't he only unblocked because he was being given a last chance? Jtrainor (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not real familiar with the situation, but yeah, it does look like he was on his "last chance" a couple chances ago. He needs to be shown the door- he's apparently unable to behave like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I am also unfamiliar with the case and I thought this was bad, but looking through his history I'm surprised he's been here this long; he is a liability in my opinion despite any good work he gets done.--Patton123 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, he's been immoderate, using ALL CAPS IN AN EDIT SUMMARY, and he violated assume good faith by making false accusations of stalking and somebody having creepy interests in minors. Prior incidents have lead to final warnings and indefinite blocks have been imposed and shortened twice. I believe the behavior this time is not bad enough to warrant a ban, therefore, I suggest we ask Sceptre nicely to stop making accusations against other people, and if he agrees, wewatch a bit longer to see if the behavior improves or worsens. Jehochman Talk 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If he could just play nice and work on Doctor Who episodes, everyone would benefit... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked him until the 9th of december, the expiry of his block that was lifted early. He asked for an unblock and promised to behave in an adult fashion and clearly failed to do so. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Would we have blocked someone else if they did not have Sceptre's prior history? I'm not sure this would be on ANI were it another user. That bothers me a little bit. Still I understand if given the circumstances we treat him as being on a shorter leash than others. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
[E/C] The incidents that led to his previous series of blocks were attacks on Giano and Kmweber. Within a week of being unblocked he repeated the type of personal attack against the same editor that had caused a previous block. On December 1, Sceptre compared voting for Kmweber for ArbCom to voting for a pedophile for PTA.[13] (after complaints, he redacted the comment). His comment to ParisianBlade seems like a personal attack as well.[14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The last ref is hardly a personal attack; he's heatedly describing changes to the page, unlike Parisan, who puts "trying to cause drama again" in the edit summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • To joshua: no, I wouldn't have. I also would not have blocked him for this if we wasn't on a last chance reduction of a formerly indefinite block for personal attacks, stalking and harassment. But he was. His block was shortened with some consensus at AN/I to three months (to end Dec. 9). Later it was lifted (and consensus was reached about that) provided he comport himself like an adult and edit mainspace. This flare-up and flurry of accusations doesn't fit that at all. So I just reinstated the rest of the 3 month block. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Endorse the block FWIW; I used to have a rather positive and congenial relationship with Will/Sceptre but he seriously went off "the deep end" a few months ago, and I continue to be saddened by his descent from a quality editor and respected admin to an instigator and propagator of lame fights and his descent into incivility for incivility's sake. He may have valid points to make, but his shocking incivility prevents others from considering them. Its a shame, really. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I wish I was seeing the encyclopedia benefit from high quality/GA/FA Doctor Who/Lost/House/Road articles minus drama. The readers of these articles are the ones punished when Sceptre gets blocked. I do, however, think it is important to point out that ParisianBlade's recent edits have been mostly about Sceptre. Seraphim 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Endorse this action. I was pretty sure this would happen; Sceptre has not been away for long enough to get the disputes out of his system. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I made a nub mistake and hardblocked it. It's been changed. Sorry. Not sure how far back the ip blocking goes, I guess. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Would we have given a five day block to someone who didn't have Sceptre's particular history? No, we would have called them a SPA and indef-blocked. For all the fuss over "contributions", I frankly really don't see much benefit in continuing to treat him with kid gloves when he chooses to be disruptive - I heavily doubt Dr. Who articles will suddenly vanish from the encyclopedia without Sceptre around. There's always plenty of people willing to contribute to the various pop-culture stuff. Badger Drink (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
True but Sceptre is one of the few people who actually contributes to those articles well. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I think if he were to go, someone else would rise to take his place. While this may seem counter to general "Wiki" philosophy, I believe that in certain situations, too many cooks do have a way of spoiling the meal - the final push to GA/FA status being one of those situations. Hence, people who have the capacity to contribute in a manner much like Sceptre back off, out of a desire to not interfere. The general culture against "me too"ism prevents said editor's voices from being seen much on Talk pages and the like - but it would be folly to assume they're not out there. Badger Drink (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite arguably this block should have been indef. Sceptre was supposed to have been on his last chance already. Giving him more isn't really justified, but I hardly care now anyway.
  • BTW, "jihadist" is hopelessly wrong. "Jihad" is a traditional Muslim concept of justified, defensive warfare whereby certain behaviours (the killing of innocents, for example) are strictly prohibited. It also a wider sense as "struggle" - overcoming the evil within yourself, for instance, can also be described as jihad. Bin Laden and his lot totally fail these tests, I think. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Jihad as an agressive war is certainly not outside the traditional concept of Jihad. This is made worse by the fact that some argue that any attack to reclaim an area that was historically Islamic is defensive in nature. But yes, jihadist is in any form hopelessly POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. The problem here is essentially that of Muslim tradition doing one thing and saying another. While Jihad in the Koran is not particularly aggressive early Muslim history consists of, well, large-scale violent conquest. Moreschi (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Not agressive in the Koran? Mohammed takes over the entire Middle-East as Jihad. Not much of that was anything remotely resembling defensive war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
          • As I said, difference between theory and practice even then. But lines will always be blurred. The Roman Republic never unleashed the legions until it had thoroughly convinced itself that it was under threat, even against the most negligible adversary. Same process no doubt at work in the early days of Islam. It's surprisingly easy to persuade yourself that you're in serious danger, and must therefore do one to others before they do one to you. Moreschi (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
            • As inhabitant of a territory that to had to fight for 800 frigging years just to reconquer what the Jihad warriors had taken from us, and which is still being claimed by the most radical muslims as the arab territory of Al-Andalus, I'll say that I find Koran's most ardent proponents to be a tiny little bit on the "too forward" category, independently of what the Koran actually says about Jihad. As Moreschi says, one thing is what the Koran says about Jihad and a different thing is what people calling themselves "Jihadists" (or, more accurately, people looking for validation to their lifes from a superior instance) will interpret from reading it. The point here is of Osama considered himself a Jihadist, if I have read it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As the previous blocking and unblocking admin, my comment on this situation is Sceptre proved himself willing to undo his vote commentary, which is exactly the kind of behavior we look for, being able and willing to remove your problematic comments is a Good Thing, no matter what whining comes of it. Second, in my judgment Parisianblade inflamed this situation. This doesn't excuse Sceptre's behavior in anyway, but baiting restricted editors is a no-no. Third, all in all on balance, Sceptre's behavior seems to be run of the mill, this editor needs a trout and tea break, no reason to make a production out of it. In the time of his unblock, he did good work, responded to reasonable admin intervention, and also got into trouble: its not like we havn't seen that out of a lot of other editors on this wiki. Also, can we please not get into an argument about terrorists and jihad and such?--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything else aside, I just have to say, the thought of Osama Bin Laden coming out of his cave to sue us for libel over a wording difference amuses me. Grandmasterka 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No remember the concern is Do No Harm. Obviously there's serious harm from labeling Bin Laden a terrorist. Someone in the US Government might read this and decide to put him on the no-fly list. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Jeez, look what happened when wikipedia called Ted Kennedy a senator? :P Protonk (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Joking aside, I mostly agree with this summary. ParisianBlade has not been the voice of reason. Sceptre is indeed often willing to respond to criticism. The argument about terror vs. jihad. vs. whatever-else doesn't belong here. But I don't agree that his actions were run-of-the-mill or were within the bounds of normal editor responses. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, calling him out for "trying to cause drama" definitely wasn't the best way I could have handled the situation and I tend to have a low opinion of him in general because from my perception he has a bad habit of acting unilaterally and thinking that his opinions override consensus and in certain situations trying to edit Wikipedia from a non-neutral POV for his own personal gain (e.g. removing legitimate references to specific websites from articles simply because he has a problem with the site). There was an incident awhile back where we got into an edit war and he ended up reverting my notice of the edit war from WP:AN and lost his rollback because of this, since then I've had a hard time dealing with him. If you'd like though, put a restriction on me interacting with him directly for a certain period of time (if I have a concern about his behavior, I should just report it to an administrator instead of confronting him directly because this just inflames the situation more often than not).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator and unfamiliar with Sceptre's case, but the other day I asked him to reconsider an unnecessarily inflammatory and inappropriate statement, and he reconsidered and even removed it. From reading the WP:ANI thread dealing with Sceptre's early unblock, I understand there were concerned voices. I believe Tznkai bears the unthankful responsibility of watching over Sceptre and keeping him out of trouble, otherwise it's just another case of giving enough rope ... I guess Sceptre was responsive to my concern because I didn't order him to do anything but asked him to think about it. Which brings me to what I actually want to say here:
Echoing Jayron's comment about "incivility for incivility's sake", this is precisely what is not needed. I too am among those editors who believe that WP:CIVIL is often used as a weapon and injustly and against common sense and against the encyclopedia's interest, particularly when good contributors get poked, pestered, and baited (all in a civil fashion) until they snap. This wasn't the case with the incivility referred to in this thread, and I interpret it as a misguided imitation of some of our more vocal contributors, because their outspokenness gets attention.
I would like to point out that it doesn't help when we applaud witty editors for clever and biting replies. Chuckle silently, but the cheering in the peanut galleries can lead to the misconception that there is something chivalrous about being rude. There isn't. Recently I saw someone characterize a very dismissive and sharp statement that led to a block as "pure class". I often disagree with these blocks of productive editors for being uncivil, but I also disagree with encouragement, backslapping, and the notion that it is somehow "cool" to be rude and witty. It's cool to be witty. Sometimes despite the accompanying rudeness, but never because of it. In a collaborative project, there is nothing recommandable about rudeness or hyperbole for its own sake. I ask Sceptre to think about this too. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
ParisianBlade I think you're behaviour was fine...--Patton123 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian Beacock and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World[edit]

  • There is an ongoing issue with these articles and a homophobic anonymous user who hops IPs constantly to post disgusting things about Beacock. While the usual policy is to RBI, the fact that this happens so constantly makes me wonder if there is something more permanent that can be done. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean, beyond semi-protection of the articles? I mean, it doesn't look too bad but if it's getting out of control there's always Wikipedia:Abuse reports for ISP reporting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like much has happened there lately. Hopefully the kiddies have moved onto bigger and better things. --Tom 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:89.167.221.3[edit]

Resolved: This thread is continuing at #Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses, below.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone enable account creation for this IP please? It appears that there is something awry with whatever WP uses to determine IPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I've left a message w/ the blocking admin asking them to take a look. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Ta. I reckon in a couple of hours when normal people over here wake up, all hell might break loose - my gut instinct is that the block affects a substantial portion of users of two rather large ISPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I sent an email to the XFF project at meta. My question is: if it impacts so many users, how come there are so few contributions attached to it? Protonk (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Because 1) This hasn't ever happened before, I have always been recognised by Wikipedia as my assigned IP and 2) It is the middle of the night. It is possible it might not be such a huge number of users, but this area of London is pretty densely populated and this ISP has become fairly popular recently, so it will be a significant number at least. Brilliantine (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Oh, so you are saying that this ISP normally forwards XFF info but stopped recently. Roger that. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Exactly, as in within the last few hours. The strange thing is that other sites like whatsmyip.com still return the correct IP address, so it is a wikipedia-specific problem. Brilliantine (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: The problem has been temporarily resolved, as the blocking admin has unblocked the IP. However, I'm not marking this "resolved" as the XFF people haven't responded yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I originally denied the appeal against the block, but then went off to sleep, and saw the resulting discussions and discovery this morning. I think it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency, as any new block may seriously disadvantage editors and anonymous editors. There have been new incidents of vandalism that at the moment are registered as coming from this IP account, and in other situations, another block may have been forthcoming. What I have done, however, is merely reverted the vandalism and formally issued a notice which I've kept at level 4 once it reached there. I've done that to show that there are ongoing problems that need resolution. However, leaving it as it is, unresolved, may well lead to other problems...  DDStretch  (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There are still disruptive edits from the address, and the IP was blocked again today, this time for 2 days (block now lifted). However, until this matter is resolved, it is likely to continue to occur that someone will block the address. I would suggest putting a note on the talk page advising blocking admins of the situation, but I don't want to give the appearance of "a license to vandalise". Would short term blocks of 1 hour at a time be appropriate, at least until the situation is resolved? In other words, treat the IP address as if it were a sensitive IP address? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This problem is being discussed below. I suggest that any further comments be directed to the thread below. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unable to create account[edit]

Resolved: Direct further comments to #Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses, below.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia account so I can upload some information. However, every time I try and create an account, I get the following error:

Login error Visitors to Wikipedia using your IP address have created 6 accounts in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed in this time period. As a result, visitors using this IP address cannot create any more accounts at the moment. If you would like to request an account be created for you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account.

I am not sure why this has come up, as this is the first time I have ever tried to create an account? Please may you give me some advice as to what I should