Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Minimum Requirements check and deletion of an RfC[edit]

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence.

It is completely unfair for an RfC to remain in Wikipedia (even if it is currently closed) if it does not meet the minimum requirements.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with the RfC, but the fact that the 2nd certifying user appears to be an SPA would seem to indicate that this should not have been certified. (I haven't read through the entire RfC to look for an evidence that the second user did try to resolve things though). Maybe list it for MfD, unless an admin is willing to delete it? -- Bfigura (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's gone. Kevin (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, the user does seem to be an SPA, but the main thing was that there was no evidence from his part. The RfC went by too fast and was certified quickly without there being actual evidence from both editors against me. I was unexperienced by these kind of works, so I was unable to do something about it until recently when I learned about the basic rule (the certification and showing of evidence by both of the parties filing the matter). Thanks again for the good job.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Mount Paras[edit]

I would like to request that a neutral, uninvolved administrator take a look at the RfC at Talk:Mount Paras and close the request/issue an opinion. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You folks are nowhere near a consensus over the central issue; you aren't even in the general neighborhood about which sources to use to decide the central issue. Closing this RfC at this time would not be wise: you can either continue to discuss the matter, or perhaps seek mediation over the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The way en:wikiepedia administrators deal with copyright violations[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to action, discussion should go to WT:CP MLauba (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, as an administrator on the french wikipedia, I have to deal with copyvios, which mean to cleanup the history where there is copyrighted material using my admin tools. Here, from time to time I see some copyvio, so I ask for some cleanup through the use of the template {{db-g12}} (which is not adapted when you don't want to delete the whole article but just delete some versions but this is not my point here). It happened to me already two time to have serious problems with admins regarding copyvio cleanup which could only be solved with an unusual quantity of talk, see [1] and [2]. Today I've been even more surprised when an admin removed my copyvio tag and reverted the article to his pre-copyvio state without removing the copyvio versions from the history (see [3]). So I have two questions : 1) which process should I follow when I see an article whith copyvio content but that shouldn't be speedy-deleted because it also has some free-copyvio content? 2) I want you to confirm me that the official policy here in en:wiki require the administrative cleanup of copyvio versions and that a revert is not enough. Thanks--Kimdime (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Kimdime has a good point. It's our policy usually to revert, but perhaps there should be another template for "part of this article has copyright in the history", or some sort of cleanup board. CSD#G12 clearly implies the copyright violating history can be deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
They do this on the Japanese Wikipedia from time to time. However, they use their version of AFD every time this comes up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
{{db|explanation here}} should work. Prodego talk 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Copyvio-histpurge}} is usable when copyvio revisions need to be removed from history. Shell babelfish 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer, Kimdime's question, no, en:WP does not currently as a matter of course delete copyvios from the history itself. And yes, a simple revert to the last non-infringing version - if it exists, and by anybody - is just fine by en-wiki guidelines. See this page for more information for recommended instructions here WP:CP. Shell's template is good for articles that started off as copyvios and have since been rewritten. And BTW, another time it is always a good idea to first ask/inform /contact the administrator whose actions you are questioning (which would be me here.) I only found this by accident. --Slp1 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I do a lot with copyright problems on Wikipedia, and I am more inclined to delete them from the history if there seems to be a substantial risk that they might be inadvertently or intentionally later restored. Magog, the cleanup board for that is WP:CP, and the template to use is {{subst:copyvio}}. To limit the tagging to one section, </div> is added at the end of the problematic text. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Either that CP page is new, or I am more oblivious to Wikipedia than I thought I was. Thanks for the clarifications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, almost new. It was just recently created on 24 August, 2003. Face-smile.svg Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the informations provided, the conclusion I draw after reading WP:CP is that removing copyrighted text in history is optional if not all versions are infected. Though, the template : {{subst:copyvio}} exist for such a cleaning, so still, even if it's not what say the guidelines, some people here think that such a copyvio should be removed. But it seems that many of you here don't even know about the existence of this template
I have to say that the way copyrighted content is dealt with here sounds quit archaic to me, a bit horrifying also, probably because I tend to consider the english project as the avant-gardist one. But fair enough! there is nothing I can do about that, so I will respect the guidelines of your community. Though I have to say that if one day the question of the import of history from this project to the french one araise, I will strongly advocate against it as I don't want copyrighted content to be spread.
Just for your information, on the french speaking project, we not only systematicaly delete the copyrighted versions, we also exile them, so the process is the following :
a) deletion of the article
b)restauration of the copyrighted version
c)renaming the contaminated versions with a title such as Article/copyvio
d)deleting Article/copyvio
e) restauring the original article free of copyrighted content (see here)
We are also implementing tools to automatize and simplify the process
Best regards--Kimdime (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the process described for fr.wiki is similar to what the admins at WP:CP routinely perform when it is possible. What fr.wiki seems to do the way the instructions are phrased, however, is to systematically infringe on the copyrights of every single legit contributor if these are added on top of an undetected copyright violation.
Which isn't something I agree with, and snippy comment for snippy comment, importing history from French articles where part of the legit contributor history has been thrown away with the proverbial bathwater is also, as Kimdime puts it, spreading copyright violations.
In reality, dogmatic approaches only work when the copyvios are clear-cut and can be removed cleanly, and there are no simple solutions to a complex problem. MLauba (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: we have a template for that, see fr:Modèle:Historique détruit, if the situation you describe appear, the admin deleting the copyrighted versions has to credit the editors which edits desappeared on the discussion page, so according to the creative commons attributions rules, there is no copyright violation. --Kimdime (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
To see how this template is used, look a this exemple of an article I recently cleaned from copyvio versions: fr:Discussion:Souha Arafat--Kimdime (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
And this process isn't described in the "copyvio management for dummies" guide you linked above. Point in case: there's room for improvement in all projects and I suggest the finger-pointing, bickering, assumption of bad faith and overall pissing contest of the style "my project is better than yours" be dropped in favour of constructive discussions. For copyright handling matters, such discussions should, ideally, be held at WT:CP, where they belong. MLauba (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You aren't assuming my good faith when saying that my point is to say that my project is better, it is not my goal at all. What I wanted to do when coming here was to get a kind of clarfication about what are the rules here and I had it (almost), then I mentioned "for your information" what is the process we follow on the french wikipedia, because I believe that it is always good to have an idea of what are doing the neighbours. That's it --Kimdime (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I just checked-up, this attribution template is indeed mentioned on the page "copyvio management for dummies" --Kimdime (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

admin phishing attempt[edit]

Archiving per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I received the following email:

from : WFFighter <wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com>
Dear Jon513,
We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message:
"We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!"
Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

--

This e-mail was sent by user "WFFighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jon513". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The user has already been blocked by User:Jake Wartenberg who seems to have received a similar email. This same person (or at least the same email address) has done this in the past (see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_7#Admin-Fishing). While I can't imagine any admin stupid enough to fall for this perhaps we should do something. Jon513 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be no intent to deceive the recipient of the email, so it really isn't phishing, and there isn't anything to "fall for" since they are quite overt about their intentions. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a good idea to automatically remove the rights of Administrator from dormant accounts after three months to protect against this as they are not using the rights anyway. I suppose it is relative to how damaging an Administrators account would be in the hands of such a rebel editor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's been proposed and argued about before. How is the risk from a dormant account any greater than that of an active account, if the administrator thinks that it's OK to hand over account information to some unknown person? ~MDD4696 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so the two are linked, I also started a thread here. TalkIslander 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your link. Graham87 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This is Hamish Ross (talk · contribs), for what it's worth. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The policy at s:Wikisource:Administrators is to suspend admin powers at an annual review if there is prolonged inactivity. Return of powers is granted by request with a return to activity. Similar proposals at Wikipedia have not been well received. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Demoting inactive accounts wouldn't fix the problem here. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
How valuable to the project are inactive administrators? Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I got this email as well and was concerned about it. I am not sure what current policy is on Wikipedia, nor am I any longer able to cite such. However, I would recommend that because of emails like this that such a policy described above is put into place. If an administrator is not active for over a year, then merely having to ask for powers back is a fair trade-off. It makes it so that issues like this one are less likely to occur. SorryGuy  Talk  16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I scaled back my involvement in Wikipedia by about 99% 18 months ago, and I have a tag on my page indicating same. However I have logged in to do edits on a number of occasions in the past 12 months. Ergo my account was never "inactive". Yet I still got this message. Demoting so-called "inactive accounts" in response to this I think would be an overreaction and not fix the problem because if they're sending it incorrectly to people they think have "inactive" accounts, there's nothing stopping them starting to go after active admins or standard-level users. They just need to change the wording around to make it seem more like a "recruiting" tool for this so-called movement. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Have to say, I'm in the same boat as 23skidoo, and would agree with their opinion above... TalkIslander 17
05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask, if your not active here what do you want Admin status for? Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just got this at my active account:
Dear active administrator,
As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project...
We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
I hope no-one is daft enough to fall for this! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I basically got the same one from User:Searchingfortuna and blocked the account accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
And now User:Goldfishhunting22222. Just block them (suppress email too) and move along. Not too hard to deal with them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
And User:UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman. Will block and suppress as well.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I see EVula beat me to it. Good work all around.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Just got mine from User:Goodthingsplanned who has been blocked for this by User:DMacks. Looks like they're trying everyone - Dumelow (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You have hope but I'd say the chances are that one or more admins will fall for it. Especially an inactive one. Many of the admins leave here because they are not happy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. This is not something to fall for, the emailer is clearly asking for their admin account in order to cause trouble. I highly doubt any admin would do so--Jac16888Talk 17:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that they may have been trolling the administrators specifically to cause the enormous disruption that they have, in fact, manifestly caused, with any administrator accounts they actually net being more in the nature of a side bonus. Gavia immer (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also received this e-mail, from User:Searchingfortuna, with the same e-mail address (wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com). This is probably a violation of Gmail's terms of service. I tried to figure out how to report this to Google, but I don't have a Gmail account and I couldn't find the right link to file a report. Does someone else want to let Google know? —Bkell (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for any response to this other than blocking the accounts sending the emails. No one would do this without knowing they are doing something very wrong. Anyone who goes along with it is willingly participating and will be desysopped and blocked themselves. I would caution everyone not to be so foolish as to reply, because then this person will have your email and be able to bother you without using WP's system. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
And Wikifreedomfighters (talk · contribs). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoever is behind this must have a lot of free time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to compromise an admin account[edit]

See above section. Collapsing per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I received an email, sent via the Wikipedia email system, from the account of User:Goldfishhunting22222, but signed by "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". This email urges me to take note of "the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests." It says that in response the "freedom fighters" are "currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts" and it urges me to "share" my account with them by emailing the password and "login details" in response.

Obviously this is an attempt -- I must presume a serious attempt -- to compromise an account with admin rights. Since i don't think i have done anything to make it appear I would be particularly susceptible to such an approach, i think it likely that others, perhaps many others, are also being approached in this way.

I suggest that this is an attempt to violate WP:SOCK and WP:ADMIN: "Editors may not have more than one administrator account", "Administrators are expected to uphold the trust and confidence of the community...", "Administrators and all other users with extra tools are expected to have a strong password, to prevent damage in the case of a compromised account."

I ask whether a block, including a block of the email function, would be appropriate, as using the email function in an attempt to induce others to violate policy is clearly an abuse of that function.

Although posting this at ANI might have been appropriate, since bans are considered here on AN, I decided to post here. DES (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I had one from User:youcannottouchthislol. Went straight into my spam box. I wouldn't have fallen for this either. They must think us admins are stoopid or summat. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of admin accounts[edit]

See above section. Collapsing per WP:DENY. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI only - seems there are efforts by a group calling themselves "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters" soliciting admin accounts likely trying to bring damage to the site, received the below via Wiki email. --WinHunter (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Winhunter,

We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message:

"We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!"

Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

Please see the multiple threads above and at ani. —DoRD (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Phishing attempt on administrator accounts[edit]

An urgent ArbCom announcement regarding the above-mentioned issue is available here. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light[edit]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

  1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
  2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria[edit]

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:
  • Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
  • Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.
and
  • Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.
Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at TFD[edit]

It would be great if an uninvolved admin could help close/relist one or two of these. If those are all closed, there are more waiting at WP:TFD. I am happy to help with any merging/deletion/cleanup issues after any closings (e.g., Snowball Earth). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of a WikiProject banner needed template:WPCANADA[edit]

Arctic.gnome, without even mentioning it to WP:TORONTO, WP:OTTAWA, WP:VANCOUVER, WP:Montreal, beforehand, unilaterally added them to the {{WPCANADA}} banner, without provision for their own importance ratings.

Unfortunately, the addition gives all articles that have a city banner and a WPCANADA banner with a city flag, a double importance rating to the city wikiproject categories, so virtually all of these articles end up in two different city importance categories.

Admin MSGJ doesn't see this as an urgent issue, but I think it is an urgent issue, since it screws up importance ratings for Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal.

76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WPCANADA is not related to WPTORONTO, WPOTTAWA, WPVANCOUVER, WPMONTREAL. They are five separate wikiprojects. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't really a matter for AN. I would also note that since no articles will have WPCANADA|Toronto=yes, etc., the problem won't actually be presenting itself at the present time. –xenotalk 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlogged again...[edit]

Resolved

Nothings been done for the past few hours and the queue is already snaking up the ladder now... so, is there any Administrator around to clear the backlog at WP:UAA? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks clear now. TNXMan 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposal to stop new vandals[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As AIV is nearly always backlogged because of new vandals, I would like to make the following suggestions. Some might call this drastic, but it will cut vandalism at a stroke. According to statistics (given to me by the reliable source of the voices in my head), most people come to Wikipedia via the Main Page. When they arrive, they realise that they can edit anything, and do so.

So with that in mind, the solution is simple: delete the main page.

Your thoughts? Stephen! Coming...

Bad idea. Then where will people go when they go to en.wikipedia.org? Where will the Picture of the Day, DYK, WikiNews, and other frontpage features be...well, featured? It's a bad idea.
A better idea is a popup for admins only that shows when AIV or any other board reaches a backlog, so that they could be taken care of quicker. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you posted this 34 minutes too early. Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a stroke of benevolent genius!!!!! –MuZemike 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual, you're treating the symptoms and not the cause. We see new accounts come in all the time to vandalize.. so.. if we stop any new accounts from being created, when all the existing accounts being used for vandalizing are blocked, there will be NO MORE VANDALISM! Think of that! Wouldn't it be a wonderful place if all the vandals were blocked, and no new vandals could sign up? SirFozzie (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That would also solve the problem of WP:BITE because over time every user would no longer be new! –MuZemike 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What is this?!?[edit]

Another example of the "wiki freedom fighters" scam
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alright, since I don't see any mention of this routine on the noticeboard, I'm assuming this is fraudulent activity-- please read the discussion below, which is composed of several emails between myself and an editor who calls himself "Searchingfortuna" (sounds "phishy" to me):

On 3/28/2010 11:42 AM, Searchingfortuna wrote:

Dear active administrator,

As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project...

We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!

Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

On 28 March 2010 18:34, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:

This sounds corny to me. I am not about to let some person I don't know log into my account, thank you. I've heard of scams like this with banks; it's a shame it's being aimed at Wikipedia admins now, too.

God bless,
Bob

On 3/31/2010 2:57 PM, Wiki FreedomFighter wrote:

Believe me, our integrity far exceeds those who would filch money from your bank account on the lame premise that there's a fortune waiting for you Nigeria or in a fictitious former Soviet republic of Central Asia.

We will search for injustice being perpetrated by the Wikipedia warlords (you know who we're talking about) (and it's not going to be hard to find when it happens, as it happens daily) and we will calmly, peaceably, admonish that admin for behavior that is not conducive to building a reputable, trustworthy encyclopedia of human knowledge. Once we've used the account once (per day where it is used by the WFF), we have no additional need to use it, and it is yours to continue using. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

On 31 March 2010 19:11, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:

I still am not convinced this isn't malicious. Please state your intentions...I've never needed to give anyone login information for ANY other website before, so I don't see why this is any different.

Thanks,
Bob

Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did some browsing around just now...never found the user Searchingfortuna, but I did find one called WikiFreedomFyta that got blocked two days ago for canvassing via email...guessing this is the same guy, still at work. I'd say an extension of the block is applicable. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
(after ECX2)Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Phishing attempt on administrator accounts and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212#admin phishing attempt, which ran concurrently on both AN and AN/I. Horologium (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
(ecx3)Yeah, pretty much all the admins got one of two variations on this letter. ArbComm is well aware of the situation, and has done something to make it harder for them to do it again. (See the ArbComm noticeboard and its discussion page. Other threads were closed.) LadyofShalott 02:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive abuse and disruption requires concerted cleanup[edit]

Note: |I have moved this discussion here from ANI, so it will hopefully get attention of more admins, and it won't get drowned out by the drama there.— dαlus Contribs

The Modus Operandi[edit]


The lta page explains this user pretty well, but I'll post a short summary here:

This user is a prolific vandal with hundreds of socks. I don't know if they have more, or even slightly less, than DY71... however, they are worse than DY71. All DY71 does is add his opinion to articles. WF98 adds copyright violations to the download site 4shared. Two edit filters have been developed to combat his massive abuse. These filters are 278 and 306. This user has technical knowledge, and has been able to evade the filters that have been put in place to stop him, therefore, all details regarding the construction of these filters must remain confidential, and must not be shared, except with users who are trusted in regards to this sort of thing.

278 was created to stop the use of links, but as the user found he finally couldn't beat it, he's begun using things like Tinyurl, thus the creation of 306.

Myself and Shirik (talk · contribs) have been working on developing these filters, but the amount of abuse.. the amount of disruption... it's like if the wiki was constantly on defcon 1(or is it 0?).

.. To the point, per the above, we need some help.


Now, WF98 has a very specific MO. Create an account, post copyright violations, abandon account, create new account, repeat.

This isn't the only give-away, however. Since he doesn't bother to create a user page, or user talk page, these pages will virtually always be redlinked. Not only that, but he marks all of his edits as minor. To anyone who wishes to help, I suggest you install the navigation popups user script, as it will allow you to see how many contribs a user has. His accounts typically have less than 10 contribs each.

Now, per the abuse page, it is mostly agreed upon that, since 4shared has no regard for copyright, all diffs containing said links must be oversighted.

The Cleanup[edit]

Due to the nature of this disruption, I obviously cannot post any links to articles. Admins, and trusted users who know how to, check the abuse logs for some of his caught edits. Now, WF likes to stick to specific articles(music, movies, and software(this was added in)), so his disruption could go back months.. maybe even years into a hit article's history.

To this end, a user created a tool for tagging, and bagging. This tool tags the userpage with a blocked sock template, and reports the sock to AIV. As this tool could be used disruptively, it has a whitelist. To request use of this tool, leave a message on my talk page and I'll talk to the user who developed the tool and give you access.

I don't know how many admins know this, but all WF socks should be blocked on sight with extreme prejudice. This has mostly been agreed upon at AIV.

All diffs which get past 306 are to be reported to Shirik, so that he may modify the filter accordingly. Take note, the newest diffs will likely contain links to url shrinker sights. If either of the filters get a hit, investigate the page history, as it is likely the user found a way past the filter.

All diffs, such as old ones, or new ones, are to be reported to oversight with the LTA page linked above linked. They are not to be posted at this thread, or any thread, on wikipedia. Nor are they to be posted in a channel on irc, only in pm, on irc, with oversight or shirik.

Lastly, if you are participating, please link your name in the below section, in the relevant sub-section with {{user}}.

The following signature is so that you all know who made this thread.— dαlus Contribs 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following was said in reply over at ANI. The original thread can be found here

Why exactly are you bothering to tag these accounts? If these are throwaway ones, they should just be indef'd immediately and ignored. Would anyone have any objection to me batch deleting the categories per WP:DENY? NW (Talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that he edits music, software, and movie articles, of all kinds. When he finds a link with a copyvio, he'll go to the relevant article and post it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:DENY is irrelevant in this case. The user doesn't care about attention. If they did they would rant on their talk pages. Tagging the sockpuppets is needed, as it lets us know which articles he edits, and and which articles need cleanups.— dαlus Contribs 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've emailed the oversighters with what I found so far, a gargantuan list of over 170 diffs. That's all the effort that I can muster for now... I'll probably do more later tonight while it's still the weekend. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Time frame

I just thought of this section, but to the point, I do not know how long this is going to take to clean up. Possibly a year or more due to the level of disruption from this vandal. Therefore, I propose, and ask, that this effort be moved to maybe, a separate page, with a link from this section, no timestamp, until everything is done and over with.— dαlus Contribs 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Participants
Oversight
Admins

Add (filter manager) after the template to avoid confusing with the below section

Edit filter managers
  1. Shirik (talk · contribs)(I'm only adding this as we've both been working on this for awhile)
Trusted users
  1. Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)(for obvious reasons, I've been working on this case for awhile, helping Shirik and reporting socks)
Request

As this is a massive cleanup issue, I'm going to request that the timestamps above be deleted, as the link to the discussion before archival is present. Further, I'm going to ask that any who sign here either delete their timestamp, or sigh with three tildas instead.— dαlus Contribs 04:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(only using four so it doesn't archive early)

  • I see no reason to use oversight on these, revision to a non-copyvio version is perfectly sufficient, as it is not likely that anyone will try to revert to the copy-vio version(s). I also don't see the point in deleteing or omitting sig timestamps, and if anyone deletes the timestamp on my sig, I will revert the change as vandalism. DES (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Also the whole business of assigning oneself as manager of this or that is not really the way things are done. I guess checkuser and rangeblocks have been considered? WP:RBI should cover it. Incidentally, all newly discovered url shorteners should be reported at meta:talk:Spam blacklist. Oversight is only required for BLP violations, copyvios don't even really need deleting from history though doing so makes it easier to prevent the vandal from reverting to copyvio versions. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe someday WP:ABUSE will actually be a functioning page again so that this stuff can be reported to ISPs. I just do not understand why we waste so much time and so many resources playing whack-a-mole with malicious vandals, prolific trolls, serial harassers, etc. They do it because there are no real consequences to their stupid, destructive behavior. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not assign myself as manager. I started the thread, sure, and I help with the clean up, sure, but nowhere did I say I was a manager. I simply asked people to contact me regarding the tool because the tool is open to abuse, and as WF98 has technical knowledge, and knows how to evade filters, I didn't want to run the risk of telling him where to find the tool coding so he could use it to run us in circles.
Onto oversight, I notice that neither of you are oversight. It has been agreed upon at the LTA page, and by other oversighters, that the diffs need to be removed, so I don't see why anything like that needs to be said. Wikipedia is not a repository of copyright violations.
Lastly, on timestamps, it is needed as this is a cleanup issue that will likely take a year or more, and I do not want this thread to be archived, otherwise it will fall into obscurity.— dαlus Contribs 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You want this lingering on AN for a year? That's just silly. If it's that big a deal then put a link to an LTA tasks list in the header. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do me a favor, and read what I say. Do not assume further into what I say, unless I explicitly say so. I said that I think that it's going to take up to a year for the level of disruption this user has caused.— dαlus Contribs 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree this isn't an oversight matter. I'll bring this thread to the attention of WP:COPYCLEAN and will undertake to help out where I can. But the correct method of dealing with links to URL shorteners is, as Guy said, m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Since when do copyvios need oversight? I see that the lta page specifies oversighting, but, "It has been agreed upon at the LTA page." Really? No oversights have ever edited that page. WP:RBI takes but a matter of seconds. —DoRD (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
First, thanks to you and the others involved for the work of drawing together the cleanup project. I'm inclined to agree that oversight is overkill—I do a lot with copyright work; we don't even oversight copyright complaints that come in at OTRS. The standard response to a WP:LINKVIO is to remove the link. But I think it's great that you (collectively) are taking so many steps to put an end to this misuse of the project.
That said, I'm a bit confused on what exactly it is we're being asked to do here. Keep an eye out for new issues? Help clean up old ones? The hundreds of socks already on that page, have their contribs all been checked and reverted? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm even more confused. :) Looking, I see that at least some of these links have been oversighted, but I can't quite understand why. What good does it do to oversight a single diff when the link is still viewable in the subsequent edits to the article, as with User:Wallflowers98's contribution? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. That's revision deletion, not oversight. But rather points out the problem with the oversight approach. The link is still visible in subsequent edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the spamblacklist is moot. WF98 can get around it using nowiki tags, which is why the filters were developed. Please try to assume that we thought of that already. We've been working on ways to stop this guy for awhile now.— dαlus Contribs 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see hostile comments but still no answers on:
  1. Why would this have to be oversighted in the absence of any policy mandating oversight on linkvios
  2. What exactly are you expecting people to do? MLauba (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuck RfC @ WT:ACTOR#Filmography[edit]

Per a suggestion on my talk page by EdJohnston, I am asking for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly close the discussion. The discussion has run its course and is growing stale. There are tens of thousands of articles involved and Xeno has offered to run his bot across them once there is a clear determination of consensus.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A closer is needed but this discussion is unlikely to advance any further than the one at WT:ACTOR
Jack Merridew made a motion to close the discussion, which was withdrawn after others opposed it, so there is no consensus that it be closed. He has raised more issues than have been determined in that talk, and the oppose votes gave rationale that regarded Merridew's personal determination of what he wants it to conclude [4]. There were points raised that have not been determined, including his drive to convert the tables being used to bulleted lists. Despite those points being brought up when the motion was opposed, he instead rather oddly posted to ask what needs further discussion. He further has gone on to post a request to Xenobot to make these changes [5] which included converting tables. I have only seen 3 editors, including Merridew, support that. This discussion is far from over, given that Merridew kept piling on other points right up to the point that he moved to close it. That he stuck in the converting the tables to lists is not the subject of the RfC and it is not supported. It really seems to have become a personal vendetta with him. See his comments here, where he tried to hijack a discussion about something else entirely unrelated to the ACTOR discussion and launched personal comments about me, that once again, had nothing whatoever to do with the discussion regarding issues at the Albert Fish article. I'm fairly sure that Albert Fish was not an actor, nor does actor discussion relate to the issue at hand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Your post makes it quite clear that review and input by folks outside that discussion is needed to move it forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Jack's just gaming the system per usual. That's all he's done since he started the discussion and made this an issue. Why ArbCom allowed him to come back is beyond me. —Mike Allen 08:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming the stuck aspect ;) Jack Merridew 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And let's not overlook that Jack Merridew is actively and inappropriately canvassing for someone to do this, drawing the names of the ones he canvassed from another page: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] This is not the first time he has inappropriately canvassed regarding this issue, see the summary posted by Eqauzcion about his first canvassing on this issue here. Other inappropriate conduct Jack Merridew has shown include launching personal attacks, as commented on by User:David Levy here, here and several other posts, to the point that I told him to stop posting to me. This is entirely inappropriate conduct and should not be tolerated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never denied it was "stuck". It's just not one of those high priority issues that editors are worried about, as you can obviously see now. Thank you. ;-) —Mike Allen 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to bring to everyone's attention that there are still editor's responding to this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alert for Commons admins[edit]

Resolved: Moved to Commons

Hello! I know this is technically the wrong place, but just wanted to alert any Commons admins to the contributions of this fellow. I don't believe for one moment any of those images are free. Thanks, Aiken 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this to Commons' AN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, a gentle reminder[edit]

See [15]. I am not singling out the author of that comment, it's something we see from time to time and I'm sure I've been guilty myself. WP:BLP applies everywhere, the closer to mainspace the more important it is. Enough said, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion discussion - G10[edit]

To all those with an interest in speedy deletions and templated editor notifications, could you please come over and add your thoughts here? Thank you. Stephen! Coming... 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New policy: Wikipedia: Waste of Time[edit]

Resolved: Obvious troll blocked. Tan | 39 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator inactivity - potentially serious decree from Jimbo[edit]

I know it's April Fools but I didn't detect any humour in this post by Jimmy. Interested parties may wish to comment. –xenotalk 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be helpful?[edit]

It would be helpful for editors with hundreds of articles on their watchlist, if the list was automatically adjusted (shortened) as they process it. What I mean is that when they tick diff on an entry on their watchlist, that particular notification would disappear from the list as they went off to see the change they were being alerted to, (but of course any subsequent change would appear later on the list). This would automatically decrease the clutter of the user's watchlist. Perhaps it could be added as an option in users' watchlist preferences. I am posting here because implementation would need to be done by a computer savvy admin. Comments? Moriori (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementation would need to be done by a developer. This really belongs at WP:VPT (or bugzilla:). –xenotalk 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I'll move it over to VPT. Ta. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

It's April 1, again. Please don't delete the main page. Nakon 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Although someone please feel free to delete ITN. It's not particularly funny today, and its not particularly useful for the rest of the year either. A regular DYK queue of 10 days due to lack of Main Page real estate, now that's kick yourself in the head piss down on your shoes hilarious. MickMacNee (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the proper tool to delete ITN, but I wouldn't even if I could because it is actually hilarious! Here in America we get a real kick out of those crazy accents! But then again we don't get out much round here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Geez, who pissed in your cornflakes today? Lighten up. Although I cannot fathom why tripe like Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay wasn't AfD'ed as soon as it was created. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute, if everyone else is getting cornflakes (with or without urine) then I'm going to be very pissed--those things are perfect for packing glassware. Also I apologize for not using some form of the word "piss" in my previous comment. Obviously that was an oversight on my part. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
We should probably merge that article to the other one we've got about a mysterious monkey who lives in St. Petersburg.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Careful mate, taking the piss out of the foundry flounder guy who started Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Co-flounder.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
At least the Winston Churchill and EOKA hooks/items have been removed - the were not even remotely funny. Seriously, why do we bother with this April 1 crap every year?  – ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the Churchill one to be rather amusing actually. Lighten up, Francis. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
So, say you happen to be Winston Churchill (grandson)'s relative and you saw the "joke" on the main page for April 1, would you find it funny? No (and neither did Jimbo for what it's worth) - BLPO ring a bell? – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor baby. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A backlog at DYK is good, it will allow us to be more selective in the face of editors who put in ten suggested hooks with successively rambling rationales for every single new article they create. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A backlog at T:TDYK isn't a bad thing. What is bad is a backlog in the DYK queues (which it is right now with three empty queues currently). –MuZemike 02:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user populated for no readily apparent reason?[edit]

Can anyone tell what is up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user? The Admin dashboard (apparently correctly) lists it as having 183 member pages, but at least several of them do not appear to have {{db-author}} or similar. I do not see where some sort of cascading request would be coming from. Examples at random: [16], [17], [18]. Other than that, we are at about a hundred CSD pages right now if anyone feels like helping grind through them. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most appear to have transcluded User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Public transport, (or other userboxes in Ashleyvh's userspace) which were deleted via CSD#U1 recently. The {{db-author}} got transcluded too, and now (if I recall correctly) we have to wait for the job queue to catch up and take them off of the category page. You could also take them off by making a null edit, but that would be a waste. You could also remove the link, but people sometimes get prickly when you mess with their user pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected Images on the Main Page[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

File:Toureiffel.jpg hit the main page without being protected. βcommand 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that you brought this up directly yesterday, and that people attacked you for bringing it up, that trout is not nearly big enough. Come on, guys, we can do better than this. Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Any resulting damage? If not, I would go for a minnow. =) Ks0stm (TCG) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Or given the above comment, perhaps a swordfish is in order. Ks0stm (TCG) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • downsized to a minnow. maybe I should have put a picture on my section above this one ;> Jack Merridew 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    •  :::See This for the previous post, and why Im using a trout. βcommand 03:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I missed that. trout's back ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, after the previous trouting, we have File:Get_fat3.jpg, File:Contemporary_wife_selling_print_georgian_scrapbook_1949.jpg and File:Apple_I_crop.jpg on the Main Page without any protection. Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented out trouts, those are protected on commons via cascade protection via commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page. βcommand 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Eep, you're right. Trouts withdrawn. Gavia immer (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

For letting File:AnnaAnderson1922.jpg hit the main page unprotected. βcommand 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand is wrong - the images are cascade protected. See this. Raul654 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

actually you are incorrect, If I where to go to commons before J Milburn protected it (4 minutes after it hit the main page) I could have uploaded what ever I wanted and bypassed the cascade protection. Because the file is hosted on commons local cascade protection only prevents local reupload. βcommand 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Given how often this happens, it should probably be addressed with a software patch that completely stops it once and for all, rather than expecting human admins to never make a mistake. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:BLP subject - Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - who is currently indefinitely blocked for various things. There are past issues with that article and the subject is - to put it mildly - upset. I am requesting, on his behalf, a review of the block. And remember this is a WP:BLP so let's not be tempted to rhetorical exuberance. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you responsible for blocking him? I only ask to see the diffs why he was blocked to make a fair assesment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The account was blocked back in January for apparently good reason. [19] He should be directed to OTRS or the Contact Us page if he has issues with his article. Unblocking him will likely result in drama. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Relevant OTRS ticket. NW (Talk) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
He was directed to OTRS at the time, and has now emailed. The question is, should the block stand or was this a case of baiting someone until they stepped into a trap. I would like some other admins to check the edit history and review the block. If it's decided the block is sound then fine. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed his edits, the edits of those to his article over which he engaged in conflict, and the OTRS ticket.
I would not have unblocked after reviewing his and the conflicting edits; the OTRS ticket did not change that opinion.
Even assuming (only for the sake of the argument) the worst possible interpretation of baiting activity by those editing contrary to him, that it was intentional and malicious, the responses were grossly beyond our policy and community standards. Repeated attempts to explain those policies and community standards to him failed. The editor does not seem to be able to participate in a civil, collaborative, or constructive way within the community here or on the encyclopedia project.
Recommend leaving blocked on-wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Georgewilliamherbert. I see no valid reason to remove the block, and every reason to endorse the block. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, gentlemen. It is my opinion that our mission (and incidentally our best defence against m'learned friends) requires that, if complaints are lodged, we review them and verify that our internal policies have been applied in a just and consistent manner. I will watch the user talk page and see if Mr. Bell chooses to help us to remedy any remaining factual errors. Any other eyes on that talk page will be welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation or not?[edit]

I don't want to go and go through the formal reporting system as I'm not sure if I'm right or not; I'd like to see how other people analyse this case so I can become a better Wikipedian in the future so please, if you have the time, take a wee look and tell me whether you think Christian Ferdinand Schiess is a copyright violation (or perhaps plagarism) of [20]? I've created an account now as I want to keep track of things but I'm an experienced anonymous editor with absolutely no experience of (for want of a better word) wikibureacracy.

Thanks for your time,

Long bit of banana (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is, although the subject is notable enough to warrant a rewrite as opposed to a deletion. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A worthwhile read at Gateworld[edit]

I just came across this interesting post at Gateworld and I thought it might have some helpful insights about working within a collaborative, volunteer, web-based project such as Wikipedia. Over the past couple of years I have come to believe that the idea of Wikipedia ever becoming credible under our current policies stands about as much chance as a snowball's long term endurance in Hell. Yet I persist here nonetheless because regardless of all the extraneous drama that we permit, Wikipedia continues to provide me with an enjoyable intellectual outlet, even if the prospect of building a genuinely legitimate compendium of human knowledge is a long abandoned goal.

I post the link at Gateworld because Darren Sumner, the site's creator, has run into the same wall that Wikipedia has encountered as the potential of a genuinely open and collaborative internet project has been swamped by haters, thus driving away those who merely harbor interest in a subject, rather than a pathological desire to present one static POV. It's an interesting and genuine read for anyone who wishes to see that we're facing common issues across many web-based projects. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You might like meatball wiki, which contains infinite navel gazing about that sort of subject. It has been around a long time, and influenced early wikipedia quite a lot. We have an article, meatball wiki. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on reference editing[edit]

This is probably the wrong place to post this (it doesn't really require admin help), but I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly cite some references over at James Levine. Would you someone mind helping me fix that? It's just showing as external links right now. 140.247.142.163 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Having problem opening a User talk page[edit]

Resolved

Hi

Yesterday I declined a speedy deletion on 20 Bulls Each as it gave an assertion of notability (international touring), even though it was unreferenced. I wanted to drop a courtesy note on the csd nominator's talk page (User talk:Inhumer) to give the reason as to why it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion, and what should be done instead (PROD/AFD/Improve). However, every time I tried opening the page, my computer froze. I tried again today with the same result. Could someone please try and drop a note on their page on my behalf? Also, if anyone can see if there is anything on there that is causing this PC to hang, could they perhaps mention it to the user? Many thanks in advance! Stephen! Coming... 11:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I have left a message. Your problem was probably caused by the size of the user's talk page - over 630kb. I suggested deleting or archiving some of it. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for that! Stephen! Coming... 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The harsh new reality of being unable to reverse certain admin actions[edit]

Since ArbCom has decided that they will summarily desysop anyone who overturns any block made as a result of a request for arbitration enforcement, this means we no longer have the ability to unblock such users even if there is evidence of an error or misunderstanding in the initial block. Essentially, this makes Sandstein and the few other admins who review such requests infallible and not subject to being overturned. Theoretically they couldn't even remove a block that they themselves had placed if they cited arb enforcement as the reason for the block. The only way around it is to initiate a discussion at ANI or take the appeal to WP:BASC. Since many of these blocks are only for a day or two, these lengthy appeal options are essentially moot. So I guess my question is: Are we really ok with this? Should any admin who cites arb enforcement as a block reason be immune from being overturned? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at WT:AC#Arbitration Enforcement blocks. Amalthea 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That discussion fizzled out five days ago, with user opining that it was not a good forum for such matters. Since lots of admins watch this and it definitely affects admins as a group this seems a better venue, but there is some stuff worth reading in that conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to stress that rather than discussing specific incidents what I think we need is a discussion of this as a concept. Did ArbCom really anticipate the chilling effect this would have on unblock reviewers? Does it even make sense to force a community discussion of a block that is only 24 hours long anyway? I think this bears some discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Just pointing it out. I've detailed my take on it there, and would have given the list another week due to assurances that it is "being discussed". But discussing the community's take on it here is certainly helpful. Amalthea 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think maybe a request for clarification, or an RFC on the matter might be better than an informal discussion at AN. –xenotalk 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
What's the issue with just talking with the blocking admin? Going for community consensus is likely to be too slow to be effective for a 24 hour block, but there's no reason why a well thought out rationale to the blocking admin shouldn't be the first, speedy step. ~ Amory (utc) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Arbcom is taking the view that anyone accused of violating an Arbcom decision is to be considered guilty until proven innocent, and that any admin who believes such an editor to be innocent is automatically considered to be malevolently incompetent. I note that Arbcom does not propose de-syssopping admins who falsely claim AE when making a bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is being grossly overstated here. Yes, you are correct that AE administrtive actions cannot be overturned unilaterally (without the other administrator's ok, OR without a full and active community consensus). However, this has been the situation for the last 18 months beforehand as well. This has been the case since November of 2008. SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
And in reply to Duncan: No, but apparently you have missed the section of the AE modification that states that if an administrator continue to make actions that are reversed, they could be asked to (or required to) desist from taking AE actions. SirFozzie (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So they can do it lots of times then be asked not to do it again, as opposed to doing something once and being de-syssopped? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discuss it. If consensus emerges to reverse then that's what will happen. If an admin develops a reputation for over-zealous enforcement I have no doubt they will be restricted from enforcement or even desysopped. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The prohibition of undoing arbitration enforcement actions is really a logical consequence of the community's decision to constitute arbitration as a binding dispute resolution mechanism, whose outcome is subject only to review by the Committee itself and Jimbo Wales. It follows that, where the Committee chooses to delegate any part of its dispute resolution authority to admins, such as for enforcement purposes, it is the Committee itself (and not the community) who is responsible for correcting any errors made in the exercise of that delegated authority. Under these circumstances, what I find really remarkable (but perhaps a practical necessity) is that the Committee allows community review of enforcement actions at all. It's as if a court were to issue, say, an Anti-Social Behaviour Order that orders the police to jail whoever violates it, but also orders the police to release the people so jailed if enough of their angry friends protest outside the jailhouse.  Sandstein  21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A very good point - standing outside a police station because the police are holding a person for violation of an ASBO by means of... loudly cheering their team triumphing in a major televised game when the restriction is in place for playing loud music at night is something that happens. You should not need to go to the Court to get the individual out, you should be able to bring the attention of a senior officer to the incorrect application of the order and get them to reverse it. Luckily for Wikipedia, admins at AE are a lot more reasonable than any police force I am familiar with and a lot more admitting of error. Obviously poor blocks may be lifted by admins without the permission of ArbCom, although it may take a little fortitude (and arrogance) to do so, since it is permissible within policy. It wouldn't do, of course, to take such an action without absolute conviction of the its correctness and acceptance of the consequences of being wrong but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous unblocking has been a problem for a while. The point of arbitration enforcement is that the decision has already been made; as Sandstein says, the point of arbitration is to give a binding resolution. In many cases, the reason that arbcom places a restriction is that previous discussion has been unsuccessful at resolving the problem. This makes it particularly unlikely that new discussion in the light of trying to reverse an arbitration enforcement block is going to help, when previous discussions didn't. Please don't read this as a complete endorsement of arbcom; it isn't. But the point of arbitration enforcement is that the decision was already made when the case was closed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't intend to imply that there have been a rash of bad blocks made in the name of AE. In fact most of them are right on, and I respect that the admins who do handle the requests work in an area that is basically a minefield where almost any decision is likely to be opposed by one side or the other. That being said, it seems that ArbCom has decided that anyone who makes a block based on a request for enforcement automatically speaks for ArbCom and has correctly interpreted their intentions. I also realize that being an ArbCom member is quite time consuming and that is why they don't review the requests themselves, but shouldn't there be some sort of fast-track review process in the event that another admin feels a AE block was made in error? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
{{sanction appeal}} is useful for exactly this purpose. NW (Talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh, never seen that before, interesting if a bit clunky to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A closely related template, {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} is linked to from Wikipedia:AEBLOCK. NW (Talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom did makes some small steps toward coming to an appropriate oversight in the AE process, though completely inadequate. The language added amounted to a gutless declaration of "If you do this, you will be punished in some unidentified and vague way, maybe." I made a request for discussion about the inadequacy of the language here[21], but the entirety of Arbcom couldn't be troubled with responding to it. I feel that there absolutely must be language in the AE policy that demands that proof of a violation must be clear and indisputable. That's just a minimum, of course, there is still is no framework for how offending admins will be dealt with (or if they will). Trusilver 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of approved framework can be taken either way. If one initiates a community discussion at AN or ANI and it supports the block having been bad, then that would seem to meet the standing significant community support requirement.
Others, including arbcom members, have said that the lack of framework is unfortunate and something which should be remedied. I don't disagree with that. But I think that many of you are being exceptionally paranoid about it.
A good faith community discussion should make it ok. The unblock and desysopping here that provoked the upset were completely unilateral, not preceded by a good faith community discussion. Arbcom's statements since have not changed and did not purport to change the underlying reality, which is that admins are essentially never sanctioned for actions taken in accord with community consensus on a noticeboard. We've never had a community consensus directly oppose against an Arbcom sanction (yet, that I can recall), so that remains a possibly point of collision. But for normal "This AE action is unreasonable" sort of things, the usual community consensus should do.
Trusilver wants to establish a higher burden of proof on the enforcing admin. I don't know that that's practical or reasonable. It's certainly not our existing standards. Our existing standards are simple - find a community consensus location and get one. That's the "legal cover" you need to undo an AE action. Perhaps it will be more strict later, but do that much now.
That's not that hard. It's what we tell people to do anyways, except in emergencies - overriding other admin actions is supposed to consult the blocking admin, and take it up at a noticeboard first, anyways. AE is just stricter about that.
Please don't turn your desysop into a constitutional crisis, Trusilver. If you'd done a basic reasonable discussion here first this never would have happened. All anyone needs to remember, really, is to do that.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you, like many others, are creating a political situation where none existed.(because that requires far less actual effort than, you know, addressing a problem?) My desysopping had far less to do with unblocking Brews Ohare, and far more to do with not recanting and grovelling at the feet of Arbcom. (otherwise Slimvirgin would have been dysysopped about four times) I really couldn't care less, not having the mop just means that my primary function of vandalism patrol is that much easier, I give the complicated and often frustrating part to someone else. But the point that so many people fail to address here is that the current framework for dealing with AE blocks takes longer than most of the blocks. And once the block is over, the block gets treated dismissively with overtones of "oh well, it's already over, no reason to keep talking about it". Enforcement admins are given free reign to make questionable blocks with no measurable oversight whatsoever. The very nature of the appeal process means that violations should be irrefutable, because the community can't arrive at a consensus in any expedient manner, and the Arbcom can't come up with a plan to tie their shoes in less than a week. I happen to like BMK's idea below, that individual arbitrators can overturn where necessary without convening the entire circus. Trusilver 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
In the US Federal judicial system, an individual Supreme Court justice can issue, or refuse to issue, a temporary stay which is later upheld or overturned by the full court. Would it not be possible to allow individual arbitrators to look into specific cases where abuse was alleged and overturn a block on their own responsibility until such time as the committee can deal with the request? Obviously, this would be useful only for blocks of significant duration, and arbitrators should overturn only when they are reasonably certain that the full committee will uphold the action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As uncomfortable I am with such a policy in theory (in light of certain events well known to most of us), I am, at least, encouraged that the scope of this matter is limited to blocks for the sole purpose of arbitration enforcement. I would hope that this would preclude automatic desysopping for other unblocks. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken makes an interesting suggestion. I think there is a deeper problem from which this and perhaps other (potential) problems arise. The real problem is that Wikipedia is like a country that only has a Supreme Court. What we need are the analogues of district and appeals courts, i.e. lower level ArbComs. Then you have both an infrastructure for appeals but with a limit on how long the appeals can go on. For people out on probation, the same appeals system is available.

The judicial systems that exist are roughly similar in all countries. Wikipedia is trying to re-invent the wheel by starting with something completely different (a square wheel instead of a round one) and then bumping into obvious problems that have been resoved centuries ago. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver isn't making this out to be a constitutional crisis. I am amazed at the lack of AGF by George Herbert. If anything Trusilver explained his motives ad naseaum and then was made an example of. All arb's agreed other then his one unblock his admin actions were un-controversial. If we are now desysoping people based on using good judgement and coherent explanations, there's gotta be a better way to sort through ARBCOM enforcement blocks other then file a request with Arbcom that can easily last beyond that of the block. I'm commenting on this from the view of someone who is under the thumb of the committee, I'd like to know that we have a FAIR process of contesting bad blocks should they happen. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that AE blocks require urgent review ("can easily last beyond that of the block"). A 24 hour block will expire quickly enough without review. The blocks that really need to be reviewed are longer – 2 weeks, 3 months, indefinite. I doubt that arbcom would be unable to review a bad 2 week block before it expired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I partially agree with Count Iblis, though. I think one difficulty is that we are not small enough to effectively resolve everything through discussion (hence the need for arbcom, and arbcom enforcement), but we are not yet willing to simply appoint people to do arbcom enforcement, so we try to reserve the right to second-guess appeal to ANI any block that is ever made. It's like having a court system, but then allowing anyone to appeal a court decision by holding a referendum on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Carl but I reject the need for a time limit on a bad block review. Does the person who is blocked get any less angry with the situation? Not usually. Unfortunately my own sanctions max out within a week. I am unable to advocate for an editor, if there is no review on blocks under 2 weeks, I then am forced to sit through a weeklong block if a cowboy admin comes and decides I violated the sanctions. My sanctions are broad enough and vague enough to allow the slimmest of technicalities to screw me. God hopes this won't happen and I am attempting to abbide within those sanctions but I'd like to have some recourse on my own sanctions if they are based on fluff. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
But you do have recourse; the only thing that is apparently limited is the ability of someone to unilaterally reverse a block. You are still free to request arbcom to look at the block, either by posting on your user page, by email, or both. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Side topic[edit]

Considering this Arbcom decision, I believe it is inappropriate for Count Ibis and Hell in a Bucket to comment on the specifics of Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare and the results of it, since that would certainly be considered part of their "broadly construed" ban. Commenting on the general question of Arbcom enforcement is, of course, perfectly fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain how we were advocating for Brews? I spoke in defense of Trusilver and the need for clear guidelines in Arb enforcement. If you can find one aspect of my comment that breaks my advocacy sanctions please point it out as this was not my intention. I have spoken regarding general processes of wiki function, and how they operate concerning me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Arbcom restriction says:

Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed.

. You were "commenting on", broadly construed. Trusilver wrote:

My desysopping had far less to do with unblocking Brews Ohare, and far more to do with not recanting and grovelling at the feet of Arbcom... (etc.)

and you replied

Trusilver isn't making this out to be a constitutional crisis. (etc.)

Trusilver set up the topic, as is his right, and you responded pertinent to that topic, which you are not allowed to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC) edited 06:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we're not reading the same thread.....this one was started by "Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)". I've also made several attempts to address this purely from my own view. If you want to get technical enough, mentioning the word Arbcom is broadly related to my topic ban, should I stop mentioning the word Arbcom too? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I notice that the date is 1st April. I studied your chain reasoning very carefully. Have you ever heard the song I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the Prince of Wales? David Tombe (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, listen, you guys want to push the boundaries of your restrictions, instead of being as circumspect as possible, that's your business, but sooner or later you're going to get dinged for it if you keep it up. It's your funeral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear here (regarding an unfortunate side topic), Beyond My Ken is absolutely right. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket should absolutely not be participating in a thread that clearly has veered into the "Brews" topic. Trusilver was obviously referring to his unblock of Brews ohare, and for Hell in a Bucket to then jump in and say "If anything Trusilver explained his motives ad naseaum and then was made an example of" is clearly an example of "commenting on Brews broadly construed" (though let's let is slide with a warning so long as it does not continue). The point of the sanction was to stop the endless pot stirring, and I doubt many admins are going to be impressed by "but I was talking about Trusilver, not Brews!" type defenses. "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way. And please don't argue about it, just drop the stick and walk away. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the main topic[edit]

Agree with Ken that the specifics of Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare are off limits to me. But since that is not the main subject of this thread, Bigtimepeace is wrong to say that I should not contine the dicussion here. If anything, this thread should move back in the correct direction and discuss the original problem raised by Beeblebrox asap. That requires one to considerer general cases in which an Admin would want to unblock an editor for any possible reason, where it not for the original block being related to AE.

The point I made above was that we need to implement a judicial infrastructure on WP similar to real world judicial infrastructures, as such systems have evolved over centuries to deal with the many fundamental problems you run into when an authority needs to impose order to stop disruption. Carl raised the fact that there are no permanent AE block reviewers. Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You think. But others don't. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I hope it never becomes one. There is already discussion at the arbitration committee about how to better handle individuals' requests for clarification and guidance, that will, I expect, yield an acceptable result. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"Bureaucracy" is one of those really nifty scare words that can be used at any time, by people of any ideology, to win points with their audience. After all, no one is in favor of bad old nasty bureaucracy. The problem is that any organized system, large or small, public or private, needs an administrative structure of some sort in order to function – even Wikipedia, founded by people with libertarian leanings – and as a system grows larger and more complex – as Wikipedia has – there will always be a necessity for a certain amount of additional structure to cope with the added complexity. Problems arise, and are solved, and the solutions create new problems, which in turn need to be solved.

If the problem presented here is significant enough to need to be solved – and it seems as if it will only get worse in the future, considering the direction which Arbcom has been moving – then it's going to require some new kind of procedure to deal with it. You prefer that that burden be placed on Arbcom, but it's a valid argument to say that Arbcom is over-burdened already and that the solution should lie in some new kind of structure. It's all very well to shoot that down as "more bureaucracy", but it's not particularly helpful. It would be better to help insure that any new administrative structure is as simple and efficient as possible, because it's undue complications and inefficiencies which is what people are really objecting to when they decry "bureaucracy." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

An example of a new structure which has the potential to be helpful with this problem, but which doesn't necessarily involve more nasty "bureacracy" is Sandstein's proposed WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on process generally begins with "f" and ends with "uck process". The only thing that's important is ensuring that people can get a quick answer as to whether a given enforcement would cover a certain action; there is far too much tendency to sak for forgiveness rather than permission, and far too many restricted editors who spend large amounts of time testing the limits. So clarity is good, rapid turnaround of requests is good, lightweight process is good. Attempts to legislate Clue have an atrocious reputation. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand the frustration that drives that POV, since I feel it myself at times – you know the person did it, it's clear as the type on the screen, so why not just ding him for it and get it over with, already? (And it's perhaps worse for me, not being an admin, and therefore powerless to do anything myself.) But underneath it all, I still maintain a healthy respect for due process as a guarantor of fairness – fully recognizing that WP is a private enterprise and not real life.

I wonder – and please believe I'm not saying this in any way as a dig or PA, just thinking out loud – if the difference in our outlooks might not be explained as an American view vs. a British one? Or it could simply be differences in our personal ideologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not offended at all, it's a fair question. I think part of the difference is that I have teenaged children :-) The problem with process here is that it rapidly gets mired down by axe-grinding griefers, hence my emphasis on speedily clarifying things. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not, as I have a 23 y.o. and a 10 y.o., so I'm pretty used to popping into "parent mode" when necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a country or government (wp:NOTDEMOCRACY). Its dispute resolution system operates for the project's benefit rather than for that of users. Its rules are deliberately inconsistent, it values ambiguity tolerance, and it (ideally) rejects gaming the system. Real legal systems instead embrace gaming as an intricate dance (the main activity of real-world courts and lawyers is to referee and argue the gamers' dance moves), so we don't want WP DR to be anything like a legal system. Plus, imagine how some arb cases would have turned out if arbcom had the powers of a real court, e.g. to compel testimony, issue search warrants and wiretaps, lock up multiple suspects for questioning in separate locations so they couldn't collude on a story, and sentence offenders to prison rather than just booting them from a web site. It has to just muddle through as best it can, without getting hung up on courtroom-like process. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor the point, because you're essentially correct that Wikipedia and a nation's government are very different animals, but I think the point of upholding individual rights is not that the individual is more important than the country overall, but that the country benefits in the aggregate from protecting the individuals in it, so in that respect the end result (quality of the country / quality of the encyclopedia) is the same. But, as I said, you're right in that our goal is more immediatelt identifiable, and a decision which caters to an editor at the expense of the encyclopedia is not a good decision for us, something which I think often gets lost in noticeboard discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:OWN policy should be applicable to admin actions. Sole Soul (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you explicate? I don't think I understand the relevance here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just like users expect that others may make changes to their edits, admins should expect (and accept) that other admins may make changes to their actions. Sole Soul (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What we should consider is that before a case is brought to ArbCom, one is supposed to show that other dispute resolution processes have been tried and that they failed. I think that these other dispute resolution processes are very ineffective in general. We need to concentrate on that to fix this AE problem.

The realitity is that ArbCom is often the first serious intervention in a problem area, the previous ones often being ineffective AN/I discussions. The argument that AE blocks should not be overturned in the same way as other blocks is that AE blocks are the result of a final dispute resolution process, so you don't want the dispute to drag on in the same way as before the ArbCom case.

I think one can fix this problem as follows. We leave everything the same (i.e. AN/I still exsts, Admins can still block people in the way they are dojg now etc. etc.) ArbCom still exists and cases can be brought there in the way it is done now. What changes is what happens if ArbCom decides to hear a case. Instead of hearing a case themselves, there will be a discussion in which ad hoc Arbitrators will be nominated to hear the case by consensus.

That ArbCom case condicted by the ad hoc ArbCom is the first serious dispute resolution process. If a sanctioned editor appeals to ArbCom after that process, then ArbCom will hold a short hearing to see if there are grounds for an appeal and if they think there are, they will then refer the matter to another ArbCom but this time the Arbitrators are appointed by ArbCom and consist only of experienced Admins. These Admins are selected by ArbCom based of their experience in both dispute resolution and knowledge in the relevant topic area. The focus of this Admin ArbCom case will be limited in scope so as to address those things for which ArbCom granted the appeal.

After this second ArbCom case, only one appeal to ArbCom is possible. If ArbCom decides to hear that final appeal, they will themselves hear that appeal. I think that this three step process has a lot of advantages over the current system.

1) The ArbCom Arbitrators can afford to hear far more cases than they do now, as they themselves only hear a small fraction of all the cases themselves.

2) A consequence of 1) is that you get far more effective dispute resolution in problem areas that currently linger on at AN/I.

3) There is a distance between the permanent ArbCom members and the cases being heard, at least until the final appeal. What currently happens is that after a ArbCom case the sanctioned editor at a AE haring cannot bring up someting that would ammount of "rearguing the case". Because the Arbitrators have already been engaged in the same case and made a decision, they dont like to have to address similar arguments. That's understandable, but it may cause problems to remain unaddressed.

4) Also because of 3), ArbCom can steer the process in the right direction in the first appeal without getting involved themselves. They can decide what the issues are that have to be looked into in the appeal and who the most qualified Admins are to do that.

5) When the case is appealed for the second time, the permenent ArbCom members get a case of which they know the relevant details of. They know exactly what has been done so far and what the results have been. The fact that they themselves were not directly involved in making decisions such as blocks or bans makes it easier for them to decide on different measures if they think that would work better.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your basic assumption, that The realitity is that ArbCom is often the first serious intervention in a problem area is correct. My observation is that Arbcom is biased against accepting disputes which have not gone through the DR process. True, that have taken on a few lately, but it does not appear to be their usual procedure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OWNING[edit]

Did we discuss the creating of a new WP:Ownership alerts board (by an editor who has an open RfC/User that includes some ownership allegations), and I just missed it? Do we really need yet another understaffed noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It will be staffed by its owner. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It's odd. His last edits before he created the new board overnight were related to a now declined arbitration request regarding those same ownership isses ([22]). But yes, it does seem very silly to me. I'd suggest MFDing the page. Regardless, I think it's quite silly to grow a new branch of the dispute resolution without any community input. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You won? No fair. Nobody told me what we were competing for. :( I don't know if it's silly, per se, but it's premature to say the least. I'm removing links to it from the various community noticeboard headers pending some kind of consensus for it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • (Off topic) May I ask what was the second prize? Co-Foundership? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Second prize was surgery on my left hand to remedy the burn scars from an accident when I was a toddler, and a lengthy course of physiotherapy so that my left hand can hit the keys before my right sometimes. If only. I have yet to find a spillchucker that can correctly interpret "fomr", which is one of my most common typing errors. Stanley unwin was right to describe it as a "tripewriter" in my case! Guy (Help!) 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ouch. :/ Completely OT, I'm surprised they can't fix fomr. Surely this is not an uncommon error? No spellchecker will ever fix what I do, I'm afraid. Either my brain garbles the message or my fingers do not pay good attention. They need "sensecheckers" for that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I want a "WYSIWIM" interface (what you s