Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sanity check, please[edit]

I just made my first rangeblock (here). It's anon. only, but could a more competent admin just check to see I haven't blocked millions of people and fix my idiocy if I have. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You blocked 24.106.0.0/18; that is 24.106.0.0 through 24.106.63.255, 16384 IPs in total. Sound about right. (Courtesy of block range calculator.) EdokterTalk 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I count only two IP vandals in the entire range this year, outweighed by a number of good faith editors. Overkill? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I count the same. I think this was probably a bit too much. Also keep in mind that, for larger residential ISPs, a WHOIS lookup will likely tell you a larger range than what a particular user may be able to acquire, simply due to internal network structure. (I make no assertion either way whether you were trying to block a single user or not, just a statement of fact.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
And conversely they may roam over a much larger range than the whois indicates. You'd need a bigger sample to determine that. Road Runner also do their own whois server, so for example, one of those vandals (24.106.59.228) is only on a /27: network:Network-Name:UNIVERSITY-SCHOOL-24.106.59.224, network:IP-Network:24.106.59.224/27, network:IP-Network-Block:24.106.59.224 - 24.106.59.255. I'd recommend narrower targeting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Proposed merge[edit]

Would an admin close and summarize Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Proposed merge per the requests at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Discussion needs to be closed? Over a week has passed since the discussion was opened. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox, for reading the long discussion and summarizing it. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality - is there an administrators' consensus on it as "pseudoscience"?[edit]

In the current dispute about whether the Enneagram of Personality article should include the "pseudoscience" category it has been claimed that there has been a "consensus by administrators" that this should be the case. I would appreciate any information about whether this is so or not and, if it is true, links to the discussion about this if possible. If I have asked this in the wrong place please accept my apologies and direct me to the correct place. With thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I should probably also add that there appears to be some kind of campaign going on between certain editors recently to discredit the Enneagram of Personality in this kind of way. Afterwriting (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It contains the word "psychospiritual" and the phrase "According to esoteric spiritual traditions...", so yeah, I'd say good odds it's woo-woo crap, i.e., pseudoscience. But that's not up to admins specifically, any editor can weigh in on an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't, someone really ought to unblock/unban Joshua P. Schroeder. But as Seraphim said, content dispute. Work it out on the talk page, not here. NW (Talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the point of applying the term itself, as the nature of the subject is unmistakably clear without it. It DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a content issue. If there are credible sources calling it pseudoscience then the question is simply one of what weight to give them, if there are not then the term should be removed. None of which will change the obvious fact that it is subjective judgment masquerading as science, so fits the label nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs) at 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't log out[edit]

Green move protection lock put on Nicholas Hagger page, thereby locking my username in. I am unable to log out from this page and my username is permanently visible. Could you please help me and advise how to log off this page. Thank you very much. Sanrac1959 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify what the problem is. Your name is not on that page's text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Geo noticeboard[edit]

This noticeboard has several outstanding threads on it that haven't been answered yet. Someone ought to go over there and address the concerns before MiszaBot archives them. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there is not much information given on some of them. Perhaps someone should write a page notice so when someone is posing the problem they can give background details to work on, and perhaps diffs etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be a very good idea; I support 100%. Any volunteers? I'm not an admin (yet) so I'll leave it to those of you who are. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Noticeboard links[edit]

Resolved: Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this morning that this template was changed to Collpased by default. I Cant find a discussion to indicate consensus nor is there and edit summary to explain why it was done. I dont know template programming too well so I am hesitant to mess with it. Is there some thing I am missing? or is there some thing that can be done to switch it back to normal? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A title bar was added to the navbox, which apparently triggered the default behavior "autocollapse", which collapses it depending on whether other navboxes are present. Without prejudice to whether or not the navbox has a title bar, I've set its state to "uncollapsed". --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RFC:_United_States_cities[edit]

After one month and over a quarter of a megabyte of commentary, the 11-part RFC topic area has now not seen edits in over 36 hours. I believe it is time to summarize the results of this RFC, and in this diff another editor asks if an administrator is needed to close. I don't know, and I can't find exact wording related to a formal procedure for ending RFCs as there is for other discussions. This one involved a survey which is now stale, with 3:2 respondents opposed to a change which was the main RFC topic. There is a lot to read, I will check here for the answer if anyone is up to the task. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, but I'll close it when I get up (in about 10 hours) if it's still open. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Looie496 request for recall[edit]

Admins, a request for recall of User:Looie496 has been initiated, if it passes then Looie496 may either voluntarily resign as an administrator, or alternatively run through a request for adminship. Please see User:Looie496/Recall for further details of the process, as well as the recall request itself. Administrators in good standing may support the recall at that page. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion RFC[edit]

All editors are invited to participate in a recently-opened RfC on the use of criterion RD3 in revision deletions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

New user neutrality board[edit]

See notice here on AN/I about a new user neutrality board. Input welcome. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctioning for POV Pushing[edit]

Carcharoth made a suggestion on ANI the other day: administrators should be more willing to sanction people for NPOV violations. He, SlimVirgin, and I had a short discussion on his talk page, but this is a matter of broader importance. I wondered if other administrators had any thoughts on this issue. The discussion between the three of us has been copied below. NW (Talk) 07:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Carcharoth's talk page here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a sufficiently important point that I felt I should ask it here instead of at ANI where it might be missed: how do you propose that administrators sanction users for POV pushing without being accused of blocking people who they disagree with? NW (Talk) 08:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why you need the teflon-spandex dress - spandex to show of your mighty gutmuscles, and teflon so that the accusations don't stick to you. But seriously, to recognise POV pushing you need to understand the topic area, and sanctioning for POV pushing is extremely rare, and usually only possible in connection with other violations (civility and edit warring). That's the whole point of WP:PUSH. Even ArbCom usually assumes the position that "X is a content issue", and then looks for behavioural excused to justify their sanctions - which often sets troubling precedences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So what is wrong with an admin saying "I don't know enough about the topic area to tell whether this user is pushing a POV - can the editors active and with a good track record in this area (yeah, I know, difficult in some areas) please explain to me why this is POV pushing, and if enough uninvolved editors agree, I will take action?" It could be horribly gamed, but eventually anyone gaming this would be caught out. Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You've identified one of the problems, which is that it is relatively easy to identify and sanction incivility, but much harder to identify and sanction POV pushing. My view is that if someone thinks someone is POV pushing, the alleged POV pusher should be called out on it, and a discussion should ensue. If it can be clearly shown by discussion among editors active in the topic area that an editor is pushing a POV, then uninvolved admins should feel free to block and/or topic ban. The point being that admins can make 'easy' decisions over things like incivility, but 'harder' decisions over distortion of content need editorial input, including input from content experts (though sometimes the POV pusher is or claims to be a content expert). i.e. the input of editors active in a topic area help, as they can point to sources and attest that an editor is misrepresenting sources, and putting undue weight on something, and so on. To demonstrate incivility, you often only need a diff or two. To demonstrate that someone is POV pushing takes much more. Some people 'know' that someone is POV pushing, but ask them to explain it and they often shy away from the work needed to write up an explanation, and/or provide such a poor explanation that no action gets taken (even if they are right). In some ways, keeping a record of problematic diffs helps here, even though that is often discouraged. But to show a pattern of POV pushing, you sometimes need to build up a record of diffs over time and then present it for consideration. The other problem is that if an article is skewed from NPOV, someone trying to return it to NPOV can be accused of POV pushing (this has been called NPOV-pushing). It is much easier to identify POV pushing when it is clear where NPOV lies, and much harder when it is not clear what constitutes NPOV. To answer your initial question, my view is that administrators sanctioning for POV pushing should do so with the backing of a community discussion to point at. Then, the administrators would simply be enforcing the will of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I fear you are being optimistic, but I'll leave it at that for now and will write more on this tomorrow. Please ping me if I forget. NW (Talk) 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem, NW, is that we rarely see admins block someone they agree with for POV pushing. Involved admins tend to use the tools in support of what others see as their "side." That's why it's an issue. If we could be sure admins would block and protect equally across the board (that is, if we could find some non-human admins), we wouldn't need to invoke the idea of "involved" to restrict ourselves. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree, SlimVirgin. But I think there is also another important factor. Take this scenario: You have four editors editing a medical topic, say HIV/AIDS. 99.999% of physicians and biomedical scientists are in agreement that HIV eventually causes AIDS. The general public is less so, but is still very convinced of that fact. An administrator with no real connection to WP:MED wanders over to the article and sees that all four editors are being very polite. He looks further though and sees that while the two physician-editors are trying to use articles from the Cochrane Library and other high-quality journals to describe the biomedical part of the article and The New Yorker and other such high-quality magazines' full length articles for the social part of the article. The two denialist editors, as they freely admit they are, do not focus all of their time on this topic; nevertheless, it is a big portion of their editing. They wish to make self-published webpages and books from lone dissenting academics a much higher proportion of the article than it is currently, having the section on denialism total maybe 10-30% of a 40k word article. The administrator decides to block the two denialist editors for POV pushing. On appeal to ANI, the block is upheld, tenuously.

Two months later, the same scenario occurs again, this time with a different administrator and a different topic, say the abortion and breast cancer. Again, the denialist editors are blocked. This time, they do not appeal their block.

Finally, a few months later, the same scenario happens again with vaccines and autism. This time, the first administrator is involved again, and again he chooses to block the minority POV because they are the ones trying to promote Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy as sources that are just as valid as the CDC or NIH. This time, the editors have done some research into the topic area. They appeal their block to ANI once more, but they argue that administrators linked to WP:MED have consistently patrolled controversial articles seeking to crush a minority POV. That argument would carry a lot of weight with a good deal of the community, even though every time, the block was probably deserved. How would you propose those situations be handled differently? NW (Talk) 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A situation like that is not one an admin needs to handle. An article RfC will attract fresh eyes, and if it doesn't it should keep on being posted until it does. The problem with allowing involved admins to use the tools is that they can't self-regulate, because they may, with the best will in the world, believe their POV is not a POV.
Here's your scenario again, but with a different subject matter. At Jesus myth theory (sorry if you've seen this example before; I use it a lot), mainstream biblical scholars, who are the only experts in the historicity of Jesus, overwhelmingly say he did exist, and several say it's akin to Holocaust denial to say otherwise. Of course they are almost all Christian. Other reliable academic sources cast doubt on Jesus's existence, but they are not the real specialists.
Should a Christian admin who is familiar with the biblical scholarly sources be allowed to block me for insisting that the Jesus myth theory be written up seriously—not as a fringe POV that is ridiculed, as used to be the case—and that a link to it be included in other Jesus articles? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good example - your honesty trying to add (presumably?) well-sourced information will be trumped by simple dishonesty. There will be accusations of POV against you by people who are quite obviously much worse. Templar98 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC) ─────────────────────────Actually, it shouldn't take a Christian admin to block someone for pushing the Jesus myth theory on any mainstream article on Jesus. The "Jesus myth theory" is fringe tinfoilhattery of the worst degree - pushed by the ignorant and the biased. It isn't that expects "overwhelmingly reject it" it is that they totally ignore, in the way geographers don't debate with flat-earthers. There are any number of Jews, atheists and agnostics employed in Jesus research - but you will not find any serious liberal-arts institution, on Biblical Studies, or indeed classics, or ancient history, employing anyone who peddles such nonsense. It gets written up in sensationalist books and bought by the same conspiracy theorists who buy all such incredible nonsense. Among real scholars this is just ridiculous pseudo-science. Anyone pushing it in Wikipedia should be shown the door.--Scott Mac 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC) :I propose that Wikipedia apply itself in its second decade to putting an end to extreme and ridiculous POV-pushing that even the editors who post it can't possibly believe.

Easily found is that Professor Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford tells us in The God Delusion that a "serious" historical case can be made "that Jesus never lived at all". ... in the provocative "God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens speaks of Jesus' "highly questionable existence" and says of the resurrection: "We have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing."Sydney Morning Herald. Templar98 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts? NW (Talk) 07:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) :Yes - it's unwikipedian, in setting up admins as content arbiters. In the case of persistent-to-the-point-of-disruptive WP:FRINGE POV-pushing particularly with excessive reliance on unreliable sources, topic bans can be proposed and may be agreed by the community if they wish. Rd232 talk 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not POV-pushing that's the problem, it's propagandists who deliberately distort, sometimes from sources they know to be dishonest - at other times just removing what they don't like, no matter how well-sourced.
In some cases, it's much worse again, there is the most shocking case of dishonesty here and the editor has not been stopped.
How much damage has he done? Enormous amounts, just look at this edit, writing out the published definition of a military strategy "proposed and approved defense strategy of Israel under which "Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders' acts"" and replaces it with his own "concept used in the Israel Defense Forces regarding asymmetric warfare". Unstopped, over a period of months he has turned that article into a mockery of NPOV, completely writing out the communal punishment element that is central to every discussion in the sources (except those engaged in the most obvious white-washing).
Admins have got to be prepared to deal with vandals like that, and it would seem they're not. So bad and so well known is the situation that, just at that one article, none of the 4 or so original editors have bothered to come back and try to stop the vandalism. It's just not worth the effort to try and make the article honest, such a mountain of nastiness will come your way and such will be the retaliation nobody's prepared to do it.
I note that I'm supposed to inform anyone who is "subject of a discussion", but I don't expect a discussion to arise on that case, so I'm not bothering. It's just one example of a very serious situation, that allegations of "POV-pushing" doesn't even start to cover. Templar98 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm with Rd232. There are a lot of contentious issues in the world whose disruptions and divisions are imported to Wikipedia. We know a lot of them from long experience: India and Pakistan, Israel versus Palestine, (FYRO)Macedonia, Northern Ireland and The Troubles, U.S. party politics, Scientology, climate change, Holocaust denialism, circumcision, autism and vaccines, China versus Taiwan, … I could form a quite long list. It's easy to recognize a single-issue editor from the limits to xyr areas of article and article talk page contributions. But it's not easy to recognize a POV pusher, which is a subtly different thing.

    It's not wrong to press for a particular point of view on an issue to be documented in articles. Ensuring that all (substantial) points of view are included, and that articles are not one-sided, is part of what the Neutral Point of View is all about. Indeed, pressing for multiple points of view to be documented on an issue where multiple substantial points of view exist, is the reverse of POV-pushing, which is the pressure for just one point of view to be documented, and to be expressed as if it were the encyclopaedia's own.

    Administrators are not police. Wikipedia is policed by everyone. The whole editorship is responsible for pushing back and exerting peer pressure to combat issues such as POV pushing. It's an abrogation of responsibility to try to foist that upon administrators alone. We're only the people who are trusted not to go mad with the page protection and account blocking tools. (We're trustys.) We are not funnels through which every single dispute and every single content decision must be poured. There's not enough of us for that, and the whole point of an open wiki like this is that the workload is spread over millions of people, including the workloads of dispute resolution and ensuring article neutrality, not over a few tens of administrators. If one wants an encyclopaedia-writing project where there's a defined small committee of content dispute arbiters who have the final say, such projects exist elsewhere. (See this project's setup for the limited sets of people who have a final say in content disputes for example.) That's not how this project is set up, however. Here, that's everybody's job.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I cannot speak about specifics, owing to coincidences, but my concern is that pov pushing is automatically viewed as inappropriate - I consider it is the WP:WEIGHT of the viewpoint being pushed that informs NPOV (which is not some aggregate of the breadth of viewpoints, but a result of the careful weighing of all notable viewpoints) and only the WP:UNDUE advocacy of one or more viewpoints to where other viewpoints are improperly deprecated is actionable. That is where an understanding of the nuances of the subject, and also of unconscious or systemic bias, is required - and perhaps finding an uninvolved sysop who has those attributes is an unrealistic hope? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • While I concur with Uncle G's sentiment regarding limited set vs "everyone" I do think that we need to address when editors consistently attempt to use wikipedia to push a certain narrative or frame content in a way that is inconsistent with our encyclopedic goals. The "everyone" approach works at its best in cases of blatant vandalism, clear-cut cases where most people can distinguish encyclopedic content from the inappropriate. As stated by editors above distinguishing POV from NPOV can be time consuming for editors that are not well versed in the body of sources, cherry-picking and slow purging of sources that go counter to a given POV can make it very difficult to judge an article just "as is". Most editors and admins seem fairly averse to tackling controversial subjects, which allows problematic editors to go unsanctioned and discourages those who seek to take them to task - why bother, some might reason. Over time this risks leaving both sides with only the most impassioned, jaded and embittered - which discourages new "neutral" editors.
  • I believe that we do need to be able to nip problematic tendencies in the bud before they become "par for the course", and we also need to more readily apply topic bans for those that display an inability to work constructively to forward our goals. unmi 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "administrators should be more willing to sanction people" - we never sanction - or should never do so. POV pushing is not per se a problem it's creating NPOV or UNDUE content. And that can be reasonably clearly demonstrated, in most cases. If you have "pro" and "anti" editors trying to support their POV with proper RS, and without UNDUE, as long as there's a levening of neutral editors, or an abundance of common sense (to prevent an excluded middle presentation) then there need not be a problem. Most of the classic cases are the reasons we have stuff like WP:RS, which are elsewhere sometimes useful but often create unneeded difficulties. Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
When editors are consistently creating articles that favor a certain POV or uses language which is problematic in tone then I think that such behavior should be addressed, it is true that the edits could be countered by other editors but from personal experience this often invokes allegations of wikihounding etc. It can be very time consuming to get to the bottom of what the balance of RS support in terms of article content, as such, when an editor has exhibited a pattern of POV edits it should be considered disruptive and detrimental - I don't think that this should be a controversial stance. unmi 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
we never sanction - or should never do so - Can you clarify this? Sanctioning editors (through blocks, warnings etc) is one of the main things that admins do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Admins are no more qualifiedto deal with this than anyone else. They are active WPedians who know the basics of policy, but they are not necessarily reasonable in any other respect. They are just as susceptible to forming preconceptions about the subjects that interest them, and just as insistent about their views. The theoretical way around this is for them not to try to enforce NPOV on subjects they care about it, but it is impossible to edit on a relatively controversial subject without unconsciously or unconsciously developing a preferance for one or another side of the argument--and not necessarily because the position is actually right, but because the people supporting it are the less disruptive--or because of some ersonal preference for something non-specifiable. 192.76.177.124 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see things in this suggestions that would make me want to be careful. Encouraging administrators to do more of this could boomerang in the sense of a few of them blocking more of those with whom they disagree over POV. The issue isn't whether we can read an editor's mind about their POV, of course, but the effects of their POV editing. There, we usually have existing reasons for sanctions, based upon those effects. When a POV pusher violates a policy, there's a basis for blocking. When it's more like a long-term pattern of pushing without quite stepping over any lines, then it may be better to handle it via RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem with that approach is that it ends up valuing civility over core points like verifiability and reliable sourcing. Perhaps the issue was worded poorly? Should administrators be willing to sanction individuals for repeatedly using un-/poorly reliable sources disproportionate to their weight. NW (Talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, they should not: that's still in the realm of content arbiting. The community may sanction such editors if their behaviour is sufficiently problematic and remains so after attempts at education. Rd232 talk 21:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes they should-- this is precisely the tactic used by POV pushers. They always use marginal sources, and never accept higher quality sources. Their tactic is to find sources that agree with their POV, and use them to the exclusion of others, and then argue sourcing, which prevents them from behaviorl sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes they should - there is no place for people repeatedly and deliberately using propaganda sources in articles. Behaviour like that gives the impression of rampant and infectious dishonesty. Templar98 (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, they should not. (with minor caveat 1) I agree with Rd232; telling an editor who is adding sourced material (not a copy vio, attack, etc) that they are blocked should, in general, be a community decision, not an individual admin decision.1 NW referred to both "un" and "poorly" sourced material. I distinguish between the two. Repeatedly adding unsourced material is blockable. But references may be poor in the eyes of one, but not another; best let a community weigh in.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Who wrote this? Also, why does it have to be a community decision. Everything is appeal-able to the community-at-large anyway. NW (Talk) 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The bottom line is that Wikipedia is a social network, with the creation of encyclopedic content merely providing a context for the social aspects. Asking for sanctions in order to improve the integrity of content (other than sanctioning simple vandalism) displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I should point out that various flavors of this proposal occur in the status quo (with both good and ill effects). The most common approach is to wait until a POV pusher violates some more "neutral" prohibition (3RR, sockpuppeting, etc.) then enforcement can be undertaken without a veritable which hunt over the prospect of an admin having an opinion. Only slightly less common is actual blocking/topic banning for being generally disagreeable. We see this much less for "older" accounts but new accounts that burst on the scene and advertise some product or mess up some tough issue will generally be dealt with harshly (again, for good or ill). Obviously the first "solution" is a terrible one but we should be perfectly clear; the first solution is merely a kabuki dance presenting hard rules as the real show (this of course is only saying that a subset of 3RR and so on blocks are facades, don't invert the relationship). But we know that what brings attention in the first place is often the behavior/POV and not the specific rule breaking. Even if we ignore the current actions of admins, the policy seems to imagine that there is a hypothetical corps who are knowledgable on a subject, untainted by prejudice and also unwilling to work as content editors on a variety of subject matters. That's clearly not the case. What we get are admins ignorant of subject specific issues stepping in because their ignorance serves as an (effective) shield against criticism, admins closely related to a subject avoiding content work but enforcing the area and the "sweet spot" staying the hell away from subjects that bring the issue up in the first place because they are a good cure for a nice day. I hope that we can be a bit more reflective on this subject. We need to understand how the status quo does (and doesn't) function, determine whether or not that is a problem and see what sort of solutions might come from acknowledging some of the inherent contradictions in policies and norms. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In my experience we really don't have a good way of dealing with semi-sophisticated and sophisticated POV pushers and most admins are too reluctant to call these editors out and seek to stop them. Editors who provide references for stuff they add are given a huge degree of leeway, even if it turns out that the material is based on faked or cherry picked sources and their conduct on talk pages is unhelpful. My view is that prolonged POV pushing is essentially disruptive editing and should be treated as such by admins. This doesn't involve the admin needing to rule on who's right or wrong (though I think its OK for them to do checks of disputed references to see if the reference says what's being attributed to it), but rather to apply sanctions to stop unacceptable behaviour continuing. POV pushing is by definition a breach of WP:NPOV and most POV pushers also violate WP:CIVIL and many also breach WP:V, all of which justify blocks if the editor doesn't respond to concerns raised about their conduct. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm with several editors above that POV, non-neutral editing is a major problem and that we have failed to develop appropriate methods to deal with it. In a way WP is a victim of its success in this regard; given our readership, editors feel it is worthwhile to spend hours to on these push-me-pull-you activities. As several others have said, it is easy to weed out the unsophisticated, who blatantly breech one easy-to-detect policy or another, but more sophisticated editors learn to be civil, provide references, avoid 3RR etc but still disrupt the development of the encyclopedia by putting their own POV above neutrality. The disruption includes not just article content but the whole editing environment, discouraging neutral editors from participating, and sometimes forcing neutrally-inclined editors into the opposite role. I've always been struck that NPOV states that the "policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" (my emphasis). Why is it that we enforce some policies, but not others?
I don't actually think it is that difficult to spot at least some of these editors; they edit a narrow range of articles, often travelling in packs supporting each other and opposing "the enemy" in every discussion whether it is an AFD, a RS question, Arb Enforcement, ANI, or content disputes. Often they soapbox about their personal opinions, cast nasturtiums, and reject input from uninvolved editors and administrators. And of course they very rarely, if ever, write for the enemy, supporting well-sourced material that comes from the other "side". While POV pushing can be subtle, it often isn't at all, and we don't even deal with these more out-there editors, as far as I can see.
I understand that making these determinations is not simple. I'm not sure that action by single administrators or blocking is necessary or desirable. A time-limited topic ban, following a discussion at AN, ANI, or an RFC would be work just fine. --Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, admins should sanction or block for POV-pushing; it's Wiki's worst problem, and disute resolution rarely works because others (admins and other editors alike, in RFC or ANI) are afraid to weigh in. The *only* admin who ever even paid attention to threads I started at ANI is Nuclear warfare. (Rd232 and I will be on opposite sides of this debate, because he supports the six-year POV in the article Hugo Chavez, which has not been neutralized for as long as I've been editing Wiki, no matter how many mainstream reliable sources I list, and is populated by editors who do the same to other socialism articles, pushing a radical view and ignoring mainstream sources. In the past I've proposed a 1RR restriction on that article, to try, in vain, to force editors there to discuss edits and sources, but Rd232 rejected that as well.) The other problem with POV articles is that admins attempting to understand the content disputes often need to read volumes of archived talk pages to see how long the tendentious editing has been going on. And, going to the arbs will be of little use-- the savviest POV pushers know how to keep their behavior in check, and are able to watch as new and inexperienced editors make the POV edits and then take the fall-- and a new one of those comes along all the time and is taken advantage of, no matter how much deteriortion in the article-- so the real POV pushers won't be sanctioned before a we-dont-do-content-disputes ArbCom, while the clueless newbies will, and they are usually encouraged by the savvier POV pushers to continue POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely with Sandy's comments. Another behavior by the more savvy POV pushers is to not edit war when their material is removed, but instead wait a few months before re-add it, usually with an edit summary that doesn't indicate that it's basically a reversion. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
At Chavez, it's much more blatant-- every time a new editor from one POV appears, that editor is openly encouraged to continue the POV editing, while editors from other POVs are so beaten up they become discouraged and leave, or turn to uncivil behavior, while the main editors keep their hands clean so they can't be sanctioned by ArbCom. It's very astute behavior, and basically assures that no DR will work, and the article will remain POV. Cla68 wrote an essay, WP:ACTIVIST, that in its earlier versions perfectly described the situation at Chavez and Catholic Church, but that essay was edited out of any useful meaning by others and no longer resembles anything like the useful, descriptive essay that he wrote. The core of editors who support the POV Chavez article do the same on other socialist articles. Tag teaming is also an issue; but for an admin to realize how long this has been going on takes reading years worth of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I only have to know (and do only know) a tiny amount about Hugo Chavez to know that the editing of his bio is dominated by his ideological opponents who have no concept of NPOV writing.
Here's the first part of the second sentence there: Following his own political ideology of Bolivarianism and purporting "Socialism for the 21st Century", he has attempted to introduce socialist reforms to the country, emphasising the introduction of participatory democracy and further civil rights for women and indigenous groups. Abroad, he has been a vocal critic of neoliberalism and capitalism, instead supporting Latin American and Caribbean cooperation ....
Whether there has been a war going on over reliable sources I don't know - but if I was going to clean it up, I'd not take aim at those with POV since many of those, on both sides, could be completely honest. I'd take aim at those who insisted on inserting surprising and likely bad information from bad sources. Those folk are either dim or, perhaps in many more cases, lacking in personal morality. Templar98 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Gone off to do some research! Templar98 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In case you suffer from editcountitis, here's your first clue :) The top ten contributors to the article include nine editors sympathetic to Chavez's ideology, and one editor who is a famously inefficient editor and chalks up high edit counts with typos and small MOS and citation cleanup, but has added no substantial content for years. And to find the extensive listing and discussions of sources not used, you'll have to go back months and years in talk archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish I'd seen this from you earlier, it would have saved me the effort I have made to make sense of your grumble. Draw up examples of all the "good" editors who have been driven off in frustration by "bad" (or, in my terms, dishonest) editors if you want any chance of admin intervention not being to your disadvantage. Templar98 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The "good" editors were driven off so many years ago that it's no longer useful to draw up that list. More recently, the editors who aren't sympathetic to Chavez's ideology have engaged in just as much misbehavior on talk as those who are sympathetic-- largely out of frustration with the ownership. In other words, they would likely be sanctioned first or as well, while the POV pushers have been savvy enough to keep their hands clean, while others do the actual editing that POV the article. Fact is, it's nine to one, with everyone else giving up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: "I only have to know (and do only know) a tiny amount about Hugo Chavez to know that the editing of his bio is dominated by his ideological opponents who have no concept of NPOV writing", not curiously, you are wholly incorrect (and obviously you haven't examined what is "going on over reliable sources" before making a statement here). I suggest you take a closer look at who is writing the article, who is doing MOS and citation cleanup, who wrote the lead, and who is discussing on talk. And read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS before you take a look. The (previously) featured version of the article was written by Saravask-- an editor sympathetic to Chavez-- and the article has been dominated by his ideological supporters since its inception. Saravask has since moved on, but his (old, 2005) version was at least well written and sourced, although POV, and not necessarily POV "with intent" as we see now; at the time he wrote it, he had never been to Venezuela, didn't speak Spanish, couldn't read Spanish sources, and Chavez was little known outside of Venezuela. I think he did the best he could with what he had in 2005, but since then, sources have been almost exclusively partisan or marginal, with exclusion of due weight to high quality reliable sources, which are rejected as "capitalist" in favor of "socialist" sources. And the usual tag teaming. This article presents a good example of why admins can get involved; whenever a tag team is reverting text sourced to mainstream reliable sources, replacing it with text sourced to partisan sources, not discussing and ignoring high quality reliable sources, it's not a difficult call. And you really should read beyond the lead of contentious articles before opining, since in almost all contentious articles, the lead becomes the battleground, while the rest of the article remains an underdeveloped or poorly sourced mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::Well, I've been away and tried to make sense of both the article Hugo Chavez and it's talk-page. It is way beyond me to say where this article should be going. Earlier I said that the article looked as if it were likely controlled by an anti-Chavez group (based on quickly looking at the lead) and I withdraw that, the article body may be somewhat pro-Chavez. But it's not offensively biased and is increasingly being written according to two books of 2007, that's good.

Overwhelmingly the talk-page looks as I'd expect it to do if all issues had been hammered out previously by mostly calm people. Meanwhile, statements like: "crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration" with absolutely no evidence (eg previously deleted passages) presented are a waste of time and will turn observers like me against you.
All in all, there is no need for administrator intervention, in fact, I don't see how it could possibly improve things. Bringing this particular topic up here looks to me like Forum-shopping. Templar98 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it takes time to sort a mess like this one (which you obviously didn't take, considering the time between when you went off to have a look and again responded here), and digging in to talk page archives is never fun, but the "absolutely no evidence" is simply wrong. Again. Alternately, if you don't want to read talk page archives, Google is your friend, but there is no point for anyone to continue placing high quality reliable sources on a talk page where the majority of editors are sympathetic to Chavez and reject them any way, no matter how often they are supplied (and everyone on that talk page already knows it). And, you don't appear to have read the reviews of the 2007 book you characterize as "good". Obviously, admins working to sanction POV-pushing editors will need to do more homework than you've done. And your statement about "forum shopping" is so off the wall, that it "will turn observers like me against you"; for me to present an example here, in one forum, of this problem can hardly be characterized as "forum shopping". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well any concrete example was liable to be distracting in this discussion; so I won't engage with the details of it, which will achieve nothing but bore passersby. The one general point arising from this exchange is that to give admins the responsibility to try and tackle this sort of behaviour would often require them to absorb vast amounts of background knowledge (and if they have done that, WP:INVOLVED is likely an issue), and then it remains a judgement call that may do more harm than good even if it's made correctly, by substituting arbitrary individual edicts for community dispute resolution. In short, add this to List of ways to kill Wikipedia. Rd232 talk 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Rd; I also disengaged when I noticed that a banned user was taking this discussion off-topic by focusing on my one example as if it were "forum shopping" and to be solved in this discussion. Back on topic, after a good example of the dubious worth of "uninformed" input, yes, they have to absorb vast amounts of background knowledge, but neither is RFC or any other forum equipped to do that well (those places become nothing but pile-on from already involved editors or those who have an axe to grind, and those who don't do the homework either, and become very time consuming, only leading to messy Arbcom cases), and we should be able to do something else to get these topics back on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's one of the problems with DR: noticeboard threads too often end up being a rehash of the same thing by the same people. WP:CRS will hopefully help reduce that same effect for content RFCs. (You seem to be thinking about user conduct RFCs with your reference to arbcom cases, which I wasn't at all. Of course we need to consider both if the RFC I proposed below happens, but my thoughts at the mo are about content dispute resolution.) Rd232 talk 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives[edit]

I don't think anyone would dispute that the problem of POV pushing exists; so taking Carcharoth's untenable suggestion in a Devil's Advocate sort of way, what else can we do? I'd suggest a concerted effort to improve dispute resolution processes, particularly looking at the totality of how these processes work and interact. One concrete suggestion is trying harder to ensure fresh input is brought to disputes as appropriate, and the recently-created Comment Request Service seems both a good idea worth promoting properly and a good example of this approach, which might inspire other ideas. Rd232 talk 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's premature to label Carcharoth's proposl untenable (and you have a pony in this race :), and dispute resolution doesn't work as the same editors show up en masse. RFC is nothing more than a stop on the way to ArbCom. I've proposed 1RR in the past, as a means of forcing other editors to discuss their edits and sources, and you rejected that. We need more admins with balls, of the old JzG school, who knew tendetious editors and wasn't afraid to block them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that if you block only one of them the rest of the tag team start making your life miserable by posting everywhere demanding unblocks and labeling you biased. Admins who upset too many tag teams end up being hounded severely, as happened to User:YellowMonkey recently. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
So true. Why is that NPOV is supposed to be a core policy of Wiki, but Wiki is everything but neutral, and neutrality is the easiest policy to game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There are several core policies that POV pushers will tend to violate, some of which are editing policies. Perhaps it would be more helpful if the discussions focused on enforcing existing, community-endorsed policies rather than the more vague "POV pushing".   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
For example? They violate all of them usually, but in savvy subtle ways, so that arb cases become something like the Climate Change case-- gynormous and long-lasting-- and place an extraordinary burden on the editors bringing the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict). And I'd reiterate that NPOV actually is a community endorsed policy that requires NPOV from all editors.--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the concerns that have been raised here by Carcharoth and in fact it reflects some of the things I've been saying for some time. And it is true that because behavioral policies are easier to enforce than content policies, there is too much time spent on looking at behavioral issues rather than content issues, which detracts from the overall quality of the encyclopedia.
However, I very much doubt that there's anything near the competence level (in terms of detailed knowledge of the topic areas they are to be constabulatin') required on the part of the admin corps to be able to meaningfully intercede in contentious topics or even to be able to recognize POV pushing when it happens. Let's be honest here, the basic formula for adminship is experience with vandal fighting + staying out of controversy + a minimum threshold of content contributions to make the applicant seem legit. The end result is that perhaps outside a very specific area that a particular admin is familiar with, they are in shark waters. As much as I agree that the content related policies are much more important than behavioral policies and as much as I would like to see a reallocation of admin effort in the content direction, I just don't see how proposals toward that end are not going to make things even worse.
To their credit, I actually think a lot of admins recognize that they are not equipped to settle all these esoteric content disputes and this is why they restrict themselves to only dealing with behavioral issues. Which is fine, except that it leaves this big black hole of how to deal with POV, which ultimately compromises the whole encyclopedic endeavor.
I've mentioned before that what is needed is a specific role, distinct from an administrator, which would be specialized in tackling difficult content concerns but given the inertia that's unlikely to happen. Other than that, the only real progress to be made is in bolstering the dispute resolution process, by making it binding (if you ask for a 3O or an RFC and you get an opinion you don't like you got to abide by it or you get blocked) and by creating incentives for outside participation in it (right now, it's a hit or miss thing - it can work sometimes, but sometimes you can ask for an RfC and wait 4 months before someone shows up and tells you that "everyone should just get along" which, however well meant, is not helpful at all)
I guess what this means is that while I agree with the spirit of the initial question posed by Carcharoth, the realistic side of me thinks that rd232's suggestions are of more practical value. Bolster DR process, make it binding and impose discretionary sanctions within THAT framework. Volunteer Marek  05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I think this AE request pretty much encapsulates the whole problem. SA can be a total asshole but there's no admin that's about to ban him that could keep POV out of these articles like he can. I got no dog in that fight (aside from generally being on the side of common sense) but it very much looks like behavioral issues are going to trump content issues once more. Par for da course and all that. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that neither content nor civility should trump each other, they are enforced separately and on their respective merits. SA did not need to get himself topic banned from pseudoscience articles if he had refrained from acting in the manner that he was previously sanctioned for, indeed he could probably have escaped sanctions even after the AE request was filed by admitting fault - instead of filing an appeal that was understood to be an attempt at wikilawyering. He is still able to edit the rest of wikipedia - apart from articles where he had shown difficulty in keeping his composure, but choose to ask for a 1 year wiki-break enforcer, is there evidence that his hand was forced in any of this?
I am not too familiar with the article in question or the sources that pertain to it, but if we give SA/JPS the benefit of the doubt it seems that he exactly fell victim to the lack of "POV process" that we are trying to find a solution to, lashing out in frustration.
Personally I think that Carcharoths suggestion regarding having a collection of diffs is a good one, this could be on a subpage of relevant wikiprojects. This could serve to foster early discussion on whether the edits were "truly" problematic or not, hopefully leading to early remediation rather than having the issues build up.
For myself, I try to make use of appropriate DR processes when applicable, the problem is that they are sometimes derailed, either by way of active boykotts, !!votes rather than discussion, or simply lack of admins willing to close RfCs. This can make DR frustrating and ineffectual. I don't think that admins should become "content arbiters" as individuals, but they should take a more active role in ensuring that DR is able to function constructively - pointing out weak !votes, striking diversions and asking for clarifications as well as sanctioning disruptions within them. unmi 11:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ways forward[edit]

Would there be any interest in a general RFC on improving dispute resolution generally, taking into account how the entire system of DR works, and how its parts interact? A recent innovation for RFCs (comment request service) is a step forward (not sufficiently recognised in the discussion above, but it's early days and it will take time to have an impact), and I'm sure there are other ideas too. For example, we could have more emphasis on actively intervening in disputes in a neutral, mediation-type manner to assist with dispute resolution. This doesn't need to be done by admins, it can be any experienced user. Would it be crazy to have a class of editors who are elected as Mediators (with WP:INVOLVED-type rules applying), to go beyond the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (which waits for requests for help) and actually wander the halls of Wikipedia rendering assistance? Perhaps it would, but talking about crazy ideas is good for creativity, and may throw up non-crazy ones... So, any interest in an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 talk 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New user neutrality board[edit]

I've set this up as an experiment to see whether it proves useful. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/users. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps edit the header above to clarify that this is a new board, rather than a board for new users. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that I replaced {{trial policy}} with {{proposal}}, I thought the original template misrepresented the board. Fences&Windows 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help renaming an article[edit]

The article Wenatchee sex ring is on a self-evident basis, clearly misnamed. As the article itself makes clear, there never was any "sex ring". Some weeks ago, I posted on the talk page there about this, but it seems talk on that page is inactive. Is there some way to jumpstart getting that page renamed? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You can make a request for the retitling the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't need WP:RM - the original title violates WP:BLP six ways from sunday and I've boldly moved it to the neutral Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions. Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. As of today, I now have a user name, so I'd like my IP edit history from my IP of 98.118.62.140 to be moved to my user name history. I've been on the wiki for a year, so I'd like to keep my edit history. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment): I don't think that's not possible, Tweedle. You can link to it on your userpage, but I don't think an admin can merge edit histories. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What about moving the IP user page to a 3rd page and then moving my new user page to that page? Tweedledee2011 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
None of that will move the "contribs" file assigned to that IP address to you, however. As Neutralhomer said, if you wish to "claim" edits made under that IP address, just make a note on your userpage. --Jayron32 04:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EXTREME POV pushing[edit]

Marcel Rosenberg, as recently created by User:IJA.

Is this much anti-semitism and anti-communist POV pushing in a very brief article acceptable at Wikipedia at all? User:IJA is truly pushing Nazi POVs, and doing it shamelessly. A prophylactic block (a long one, I hope) may be somewhat helpful in a case like this. (User notified of thread here.) 24.47.118.184 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point about this, but I am not too thrilled about having to undo your edit here: [1]. --FormerIP (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Get back on track. HEY, WE'RE DEALING WITH FASCISM. 24.184.232.211 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here. I recently did an essay on the Spanish Civil War and I did a bit about Rosenberg. I found an article about Rosenberg from metapedia (I'd never heard of it before) from google-ing his name. I just copied and pasted the content into Wikipedia from Metapedia as Wikipedia didn't have an article on him. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong at the time. Now that I have actually read what it has said, I can see that is rather POV. I'd just like to say sorry, I didn't have any fascist POV intentions. IJA (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just searched Wikipedia for "Metapedia" and I didn't know it was a White Nationalist site, I just came across it by searching for Marcel Rosenberg into google. I apologise once again. IJA (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
First things first: do not simply copy and paste text from other websites into Wikipedia, as it can violate the copyright of the original author. Such text will be deleted. Secondly, you shouldn't use Metapedia as a source for whether the sun will come up tomorrow, much less for anything of substance. The whole point of its existence is to push a stealthy white supremacist point of view - though they aren't very stealthy if the material in question is to be judged by. Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand. I had no idea about Metapedia, I just thought it was one of the many online encylopedias which anyone can edit. I wasn't intentionally being POV. IJA (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've revdel'd the text as blatant copyright violation, as Metapedia was not attributed in line with their GFDL license when the article was created (the text is also worthless coming from such a source). IJA, how many other articles have you created by copying verbatim from a source? Fences&Windows 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder, and not especially aimed at you, Fences & Windows - but with our current licensing we can no longer use GFDL-only text in any case. Only text that can be licensed under CC-BY-SA-3 is allowed (which is not true of GFDL-only text), and then only if we meet the license terms when we include it, and then we need to attribute the text even if it isn't required by the license. Anyone who's not sure what would be acceptable to copy should just not copy anything from elsewhere, which guarantees that you haven't violated copyright. Gavia immer (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that dawned on me later. Thanks for the reminder. Fences&Windows 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Metapedia. I can't even browse that site from my ISP--either the site has been taken down or my ISP is nannying it. Oh well at least that saves me having to scrub my optic nerve down with lysol. --TS 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's just down at the moment - I was just now checking the site for a copyright statement to link here, and I can't bring it up even through Tor, which implies that it's not an ISP problem. At least, it's not one for me; it may be that it's down and your ISP filters it. Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it must just be down. I'm getting a 404 for it. Shame. I'll just have to pick up the Daily Express instead. --FormerIP (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - A user that is cut and copy pasting content to this wikipedia after three year of contributions and saying "I just copied and pasted the content into Wikipedia from Metapedia as Wikipedia didn't have an article on him. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong at the time." - is setting alarms off for me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

External links on Metapedia[edit]

Aside - can anyone explain just why the external links on this article are formatted the way they are? Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add external link to metapedia.org on the article, but URL of the website is registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. Karppinen (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Great - ED all over again. Can someone fix that so we can have the link in the normal format please? Exxolon (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If that is done, you probably want to add a abuse filter to have someone review where and when those links are used. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A users repeated incivility towards other editors[edit]

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonriddengirl (talkcontribs) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to summarise + close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents[edit]

Unless I missed it, no one else has sought out an admin to close the Use of classified documents RfC. So, I suppose i'm starting that request now. Can an admin please close and summarize the RfC, since it was started on December 15th and it is now the 17th of January? SilverserenC 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um...hello? O_o SilverserenC 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm clearly being ignored. :( SilverserenC 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the header, and moved it to the bottom; hope that was OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would help, but I have already commented on the issue. Keep in mind that in discussions as large as this one (and indeed, as contentious), many of the most active admins have already weighed in with their opinions, making them ineligible to close. For admins that are less active, closing such a discussion can be daunting to say the least. Where passions are high, there is often a shitstorm in the waiting regardless of which way the discussion gets closed, which again tends to scare off admins. --Jayron32 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we need to find someone to close it. This RfC is an issue that really needs to be completed. SilverserenC 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's still open this weekend, I'll do it (or at least write a summary; I may be too chickenfeces to actually close). Anything is better than studying for midterms. --Danger (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to interpret consensus and close it just now, not having been previously involved in the discussion whatsoever. The inevitable flames are directed here. henriktalk 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please participate in this MfD[edit]

Resolved

This is an attempt at a neutral notification because I don't feel enough neutral people (not associated with the related Wikiproject) are commenting. Please see [2]. Thus far, the majority of people commenting are members of the Wikiproject itself who are, understandably, voting keep. However, those requesting deletion are basing their decision on policy as it exists. Hopefully this isn't breaking policy and in no way is this intended to sway a vote, but to implore those not directly affected to share their opinions. - Burpelson AFB 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The debate in question is located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwikilink to Azerbaijani Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. Please, add Azerbaijani wikipedia ([[az:]]) to "More than 50,000 articles" section of the {{subst:Wikipedia languages}} template. So last week we have reached 50.000 articles: 10 000+ articles. I applied this term in the templates talk page, but users which answered me don't want do discuss it. They think that, they are right, but I think their reasons are not eligible in this situation. Please, resolve this problem.--Wertuose (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion may be found at Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Azerbaijani_wikipedia. Note that az.wiki is correctly shown on the master list (here) as having 50,000+ articles. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at SFD[edit]

Currently, the SFD backlog goes all the way back to November 25, with 2 older discussions still open (November 10th and October 8). Can some one please come and help out? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs[edit]

(Reposting after this was archived.)

For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Prods over the limit[edit]

Northwood Mall and Tallahassee Skate Park. Both are prods over the 7-day limit and in need of deletion. Anyone game? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The skate park one was also a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

AIV[edit]

Large backlog at WP:AIV. Orphan Wiki 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be all that big a backlog; the bot isn't clearing out the ones that have been blocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
When the bot stops working it's almost always because someone has messed with the page's header[3]. I've now reset it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The page had been backlogged for about an hour before I added that template. I merely did as I was instructed at the top of this noticeboard. (Administrative backlogs → add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page). But anyway, I won't add it again in future. Orphan Wiki 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Would that have caused the problem? The template wasn't added until 15:06; this IP had been blocked for half an hour by then, and it remained listed until I removed it manually at 15:20. </technologically clueless question> Whatever it was, I'm glad to see the bot back in action. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. The page had backlogged for a whole hour. That's when I added the template. Orphan Wiki 15:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not really related to what I asked. :) I'm asking if it is ordinary for the bot to leave a listing for 30 minutes after it is addressed. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure that it was your addition of the tag that caused the bot to stop delisting addressed IPs, though certainly it seemed to start working again once the tag was removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No. 30 minutes is definitely not normal. I think it's two things. First, thing X was added that caused the bot to stop working, and then the erroneously added tag caused it to continue to stop working even though thing X was since removed. For AIV, there's a {{noadminbacklog}} template in the header that should be changed to {{adminbacklog}}, instead of adding a new tag. I just can't figure out what thing X is. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Odd. When I reverted AIV to this version, which it was stuck in for 20 mins, the bot works quite normally within one or two minutes. The first problem is probably the server the bot is running on rather than the page content. T. Canens (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a look at the source code earlier and couldn't find any reason that either of the suspect edits would break the bot. This is now really bugging me. If anyone knows the answer I'd really like to know! Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The same thing is happening today, FWIW. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion Request[edit]

Resolved: JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Process Plus/Process PlusI'm sorry, but I'm at the doctor's office, so I don't have time to do what you ask. You've made a reasonable request, so there shouldn't be any problem with someone else fulfilling it. Please go to WP:AN and post a request for undeletion — simply copy/paste the following message:

"Please undelete User:Process Plus/Process Plus. Nyttend, who deleted it, says that it should be undeleted, but he doesn't have time to do everything properly, so he told me to come here and ask for help."

Hope this helps! Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talkcontribs) --Process Plus (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI[edit]

I've never seen WP:UAA as backed up as it is right now — Timneu22 · talk 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There were quite a few reports that had already been blocked, looks like the bots that usually remove them stopped working for a few hours. January (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A bot proposal from Δ[edit]

I know people will want to attack, make nasty comments but lets set those aside, As I am doing NFC enforcement I have noticed that a lot of media has a rationale but for a dab page, I have been ignoring these for the most part however I have come up with an idea and prototype code to fix them, right now it is isolated to the article = parameter of most non-free rationales, but it could be expanded to a few simi-standard hand written rationale formats. It basically checks to verify that the article specified is a dab, and that the dab points to the article where the media is being used, if it matches it replaces the link to the dab with the correct article title. I am posting here due to the fact that due to my current restrictions I cannot just post to the BRFA process and get the ball rolling. ΔT The only constant 17:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I like this idea, and I don't foresee any big issues. As long as it saves images from being CSDd by someone else, it sounds good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Delta, as long as you do so in a careful, deliberate manner, I see no issue with this. — BQZip01 — talk 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I was planning on a bot for the work. ΔT The only constant 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, I'd suggest leaving the bot in someone else's hands. There's already enough people still upset with you over bot-activities, no reason to give them more ammunition. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems helpful. I'd support it. Resolute 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This sounds like the one that would catch the majority of the problems with #10c so clearly an appropriate thing to try. I'd make sure you limit your semi-auto editors for this to just do this and have a link to something to explain what you did in case an error does pop up. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this sounds like a great idea. I disagree with TheHandThatFeedsYou that you should leave the bot with others; open discussion here seems to be sufficient, given your restrictions. Thank you for taking this to a wide audience for a discussion. --Jayron32 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree this is the right approach, and seems reasonable. A few comments:
    1. If there is opposition to you (personally) doing it, someone else should, as it seems entirely sensible.
    2. Perhaps if you change the rationale, we should leave the old one with a "moved rationale from" template change note included (or new template indicating it's a now-moved rationale), to preserve the history more clearly in the image page side.
    3. Expanding on this - When you find 10.c violations in general, perhaps a / the bot could do some automatic investigation, by checking all the "What uses this image" pages' page move histories to see if any of those prior names match the rationale, and then fix those as well. That would seem to fix a lot of the cases that caused the negative reactions last week.
    Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Moves are something that I am not looking to address at this point yet, paso a paso, Im not really sure a rationale moved is really a needed thing, for the most part its fairly simple fixes like [4] where the person who wrote the rationale just made a minor error in the article parameter. (in this case they forgot the (KIJHL)) When I get some more free time, Ill take a look at how big of an issue the moved page thing is. But these problems need fixed one step at a time, there is really no point in trying to make the project too complex. ΔT The only constant 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a perfectly reasonable approach. The first step you outlined and asked for comment on seems fine to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Anyone have any real objections before I file a BRFA? ΔT The only constant 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I object. Given your contentious history (and the straight-forwardly nasty way that you opened this thread) I'd suggest that you leave everything about this to someone else. Great idea seems to be the consensus, but I'm strongly siding with THTFY. Perhaps it would be just easier for you to find something to do that doesn't involve a bot?
    Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Just for your information, Ive been running a bot for a good while already, Please review WP:AGF, I hid nothing in the manner that I brought the idea forward. ΔT The only constant 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You might want to follow your own advice since you opened this thread with an assumption of bad faith. This is the exact problem that was spoken of last time.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Aaron Brenneman, I think you should comment on the issue, not on the editor. But since you wish to discuss about the editor, perhaps you weren't aware that Δ currently runs Δbot which helps with WP:SPI cases? Were there oppositions to Δbot before it's approved? Yes. Are there complaints about Δbot since it begins working in SPI? Nope. (For the record, we had to prepare a backup plan if Δbot does go down.) If you think what Δ's bots do are everything bad and nothing good, you're very much mistaken. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
          @OhanaUnited: Please don't link "no personal attacks" at me over such a petty slight. Overuse of the term makes it mean less when someone is actually attacked.
          @Δ: I'm not sure why you're responding to things I didn't say, that you don't run a bot at all? That you hid something? And, how am I not assuming good faith by pointing out that you have a contentious history (i.e. arbitration, etc) and that it's ongoing (i.e. 90% of this board over your last bot thread)? My straight-forward opinion is that I would prefer that you find something else to do. Everyone has opinions.
          Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
          • As they say, "Opinions are like <rears> - everybody has one." –MuZemike 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
          And why didn't you feel the need to bring this up with Delta Ohana? He started this entire thread with an assumption of bad faith, but as soon as someone calls him on it, you rush to his defence. The first thing he did was comment on other editors before he even brought up his issue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • User:FairuseBot, which I'm hoping to reactivate today, can already do this for disambiguation pages and redirects (see, for example, [5]). I can update it to also handle hatnote disambiguations, if people want me to. --Carnildo (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This seems like a far better idea for everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A new bot is a good idea (much less work for us) I agree with The hand that feeds given your reputation delta (including the bizaare edit war I had to step into), the bot is better in someone elses hands (I want to play with the bot!)--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Clarification there, my reply was to Carnildo. I think it would be better for him to modify the existing bot which already does this.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I would much prefer that Carnildo runs this task on his bot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry to say that, after much experience, I have come to the conclusion that Δ does not have the right temperament to operate bots. This is reflected in the fact that he is under edit restrictions at the present time. He should not be approved another bot, particularly not a bot relating to images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

malware alerts[edit]

for the last week several times when I search i get a malware alert from google about both the wikipedia page and the offical author site for example I just tried to find out about barbara hamblys latest books and got an malware alert on both her wikipedia page and her offical website ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.96.184 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not get the same alert when searching for "barbara hamblys". Nevertheless, if the alert is originating from www.google.com you may want to contact Google regarding this, otherwise it could have something to do with your anti-vandalism or anti-spyware settings. -- œ 12:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism campaign on Today's featured articles[edit]

Starting on January 14, a vandal or a group of vandals have been excessively vandalizing Today's featured articles, starting with Calgary Hitmen and then continuing with Moons of Saturn, and I. M. Pei. Up to this point, all the vandalism edits were Scientology-related.

However, the last two TFAs, Wintjiya Napaltjarri and Unification of Germany, this vandal(s) has taken it a step further, causing massive edit summary vandalism (which are all currently RevDeleted, but if you read down, it would show some disgusting message).

This vandal(s) is exclusively abusing open proxies to vandalize TFAs, so the only option we have to far is to semi-protection. Moreover, if this persists, we may have to keep TFAs locked up for the remainder of its time on the Main Page, and pre-emptive semi-protection may also need to be considered. –MuZemike 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also discovered that some of them are from Brazil and the United States according to geolocate data. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This vandal is also hitting nearly every article linked from the leads in the TFAs. The following have also been vandalized in exactly the same way:

Note that this is probably not all of them, as I have not checked the others, yet. –MuZemike 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter, maybe? Although that's just a temporary solution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
See filters 381-383. I seem to have blocked around 100 of his IPs in the last few days. More examples there. It's probably not worth pre-emptively semi-protecting all the articles on the front page (TFA/DYK/ITN are all targeted), but no reason not to for a short time after the fact. It can soon get pretty tedious constantly finding unblocked proxies. Block on sight - around six months on average should be sufficient. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What about rangeblocks? -