Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62

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

Noticeboard archives


Categories' order within an article[edit]

I was quite certain there was a guideline—or at least a consensus—that categories should be arranged in alphabetical order within articles, in part because sorting by relevance is a subjective exercise at best. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Darned if I can find it... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that's the procedure for interwiki links, but I don't specifically remember seeing anything like that for categories. Couldn't hurt though. --Daniel Olsen 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it appears there isn't one. I've begun a discussion toward that aim. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it was alphabetical too, but I can't remember if years categories (like Category:1945 births are sorted before or after the alphanumeric categories. Hbdragon88 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely before; but I don't want to search for it again ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone want to make a Bugzilla feature request for this? howcheng {chat} 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd oppose that. Category order should be flexible; see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#What is the issue here?. Chick Bowen 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd also oppose it for similar reasoning. While sorting by relevance may be subjective, the same can be said for any authorial decisions regarding structure or content of an article. The times when sorting alphabetically makes sense is when no reasonable order of relevance exists or when an item in the list is likely to be searched for. In the case of categories, I'd argue that they are more likely to be looked at to find related categories of articles, and for this purpose it would be more useful to put the most "relevant" categories first. If need be, an editor comment explaining the rationale behind the ordering should help when consensus on relevance is desired or to assist editors in maintaining the ordering. —Doug Bell talkcontrib 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Relevance" is POV based on the person editing or reading the article, nothing more. The very next person will most likely disagree with the ordering, and change it. If it's alphabetical, you won't have anyone saying "but B should come before A". --Kbdank71 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Relevance" is POV — pretty much total disagreement here, at least if this was intended as a sideways reference to WP:NPOV, unless we want to say the entire encyclopedia is POV. We constantly have to make subjective authorial and editorial judgements regarding relevance in order to create the encyclodedia. If we're not making these judgements, then how do we decide what articles to include and not to include; what to include in the article and what not to include; and what order to discuss items in an article (or maybe we should just sort the subtopics in an article alphabetically?) The fact is, we can't create an encyclopedia without continuously making judgements regarding relevance. Now what I do agree with is that the next person to come along might have a different idea regarding relevance and change it—gee, that sounds kind of like how the whole editing and article creation process here works. Using order of relevance is not only acceptable, but I would say it is often preferred. —Doug Bell talkcontrib 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Relavance may be POV, but it sure is useful. Look at Yao Ming. Would you rather have "Chinese basketball players" or "Basketball players at the 2004 Summer Olympics" be the first category? I say the former is a lot more crucial than the latter, so I'd want it earlier. --Mike Selinker 09:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry[edit]

I just unprotected Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. This page has been the scene of a rather nasty edit war. Particularly, a member of CARM claims to have initiated legal action and then subsequently used sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets (the meatpuppets at least are confirmed) to continue editing the page while banned. I have unprotected the page because it has been protected for more than two weeks. However, I fear that people will resume the edit warring and perhaps try to bias the article as a result of the unprotection. If some other admins could monitor the page, I'd much appreciate it. I have no opinion as to the current level of bias in the page and frankly, I wish I had never heard of the page. But what I'm saying is that I'm not claiming the current page is unbiased, only that it is guaranteed to swing one way or another if the edit warring resumes. Particularly watch for people removing criticism from the article, or for other people inserting additional duplicated criticism. --Yamla 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Diane S was caught using more sockpuppets to get around a ban placed in response to her legal threat. --Yamla 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio[edit]

seabhcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has misused his admin tools by reverting and then fully protecting an article that he is an active editor. He has decided that his version is the "final" version and reverted a differing version before protecting. This article should be unlocked immediately. He does not own this article. Tbeatty 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Operation Gladio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) links for convenience. Thatcher131 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, for one thing the article is generally deficient. I learned more from the opening paragraphs of this than I did from the article. Since the stay behind networks were real, a hoax tag over the whole article seems dishonest. The question seems to be whether or not these stay-behind groups committed acts of domestic terrorism. There should be a way of covering all of this in the article, i.e. a) what is known and not disputed about the stay at home networks; b) what is alleged, noting the sources on both sides of the forgery question. If there is any violation in protecting the version without the hoax tag it is minor; an uninvolved admin would have a 50/50 chance of picking that version anyway. Thatcher131 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What are we protecting it from? I can't implement your suggestions when the article is completely protected. The article will not change from being deficient in this state. --Tbeatty 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reprotected the page due to revert warring between User:Derex and User:Tbeatty. -- Steel 12:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A revert war that didn't even rise to 3RR by either side. Please unprotect it so that it can be improved.--Tbeatty 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR is not a license to revert war so long as nobody goes over three a day. Revert warring considered harmful. Sort it out like civilised people on the Talk page please. — Saxifrage 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism only ID[edit]

Please take a look at the edits by User:Leftistguerrilla contribs (talk). Judging by the edits and by the user ID, it seems to be a vandalism only ID and possibly worthy of a block. Hu 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There are good-faith edits mixed in with the vandalism, so I've left him a stronger warning for now. If he realises that he can't continue editing properly when he feels like and vandalising when he feels like, good. If he doesn't take any notice, then he should be blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

White people[edit]

Some conflicts related to this article and its editors have produced a slew of requests at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. I've backed off from taking action because there's an open mediation case and another administrator has already gotten out the mop for the editors involved, probably due to postings at other noticeboards. I'm one step away from recusing myself on the whole affair, yet am unsure what to do about all these overlapping requests. Would it be out of line to close and archive the whole lot? DurovaCharge! 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been one of the involved admins (I don't know if you are referring to me above) but I'm very confused by the situation. If you want to deal with it, feel free. JoshuaZ 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I worry that my beliefs would affect my judgement. The point where I put that in writing must be the point where I do recuse myself. If anyone wants to take this I'd be very grateful. DurovaCharge! 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I am having similar issues. JoshuaZ 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to end up at ArbCom. Can we refer it there while mediation is ongoing? DurovaCharge! 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Technically yes, but it would be preferable to continue mediating anyway, given that arbcom cases may last awhile. (Radiant) 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalising "web"[edit]

Would appreciate another admin taking a passing look at this, since I'm involved... UBeR (talk · contribs) has made edits to website to replace every occurrence of "web" or "website" into the capitalised and split "Web site". Following that edit a request has been made to move the article to Web site. Both forms, "website" and "web site", are in widespread usage and the forced capitalisation just baffles me. Smacks of the numb US vs. UK English issues normally seen...

Relevant links:

Glancing at UBeR's contribs there are many other similar edits and a discussion at Talk:Web page. Thanks/wangi 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we would do well to define preferred usage for select terms and phrases to promote consistency, create a central place to debate/discuss preferences, and have a style guide that can be referenced to settle these style disputes. The Web vs. web vs. Web site vs. web site vs. website is a perfect example. In 1996, Tim Berners-Lee said the Web should be capitalised to distinguish it from a spider’s web. Common practice and style guides have diverged from the initial practice of capitalisation of World Wide Web, the Web, the Internet and the Net and use of Web site, on-line and e-mail. I would propose creating Wikipedia:Manual of Style (preferred terms) or some similar page to hash out preferred styles for these and other similar terms that can have one or more styles in common usage. I am not talking about trying to choose between terms that are have fairly definitive but localized usage (such as US vs. UK vs. Australian English). At any rate, until such a style guide addition is undertaken, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues should probably govern editor behavior. —Doug Bell talkcontrib 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Harrasment[edit]

After I warned User: for vandalism link, User: vandalized my user_talk, page link, as well as this and this. The IP has only been used for vandalism on Wikipedia. Since then, he has tried to change my password by entering my user name and clicking the "E-mail new password" link. As a result, I've received emails saying:

Someone (probably you, from IP address
requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for
The password for user "Kungming2" is now "******".
You should log in and change your password now.

As my IP address is, the request for a password change was not submitted by me. I have also placed a message on his talk page regarding this, but to no avail. I respectfully request that administrators review this notice and help me. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • As you can see the new password was mailed to you, not them, such attempts at hijacking a user name do more to reveal a deliberate vandal than to actually threaten your account. I've reblocked that ip#. -- Infrogmation 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

idont know where to post vandalism[edit]

the article on Jake Lloyd has some very obvious vandalism could someone fix it or tell me where i should be putting this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I've removed it. In the future, you should feel free to remove any vandalism that you find in an article on your own. Picaroon9288 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the title of this well-intentioned section provoke other chuckles? As an administrator, I recommend you post your vandalism this way... ;) DurovaCharge! 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I'm so used to seeing vandalism reports on here that I didn't even think of your interpretation. But if recommendations of where to post vandalism must be given, I recommend Wikipedia:sandbox! Picaroon9288 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush protection[edit]

Hey, if we must have articles such as this in a virtually permanent state of semi-protection (I'm not convinced we need to - but I accept that's not the consensus), but if we must - could we consider not placing the {{sprotected}} on them. This template is fine for the short-tern, but on our most prominent articles it a) is ugly b) says to every passer-by 'Hey, Wikipedia has a problem with vandals. We aren't going to let you vandalise this exceptional article, so please go find another to disrupt'. It isn't exactly a great advert for wiki-pedia WP:BEANS--Docg 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I wouldn't mind... for whatever that's worth. IPs can tell it's protected a glance because it will just say "view source". We don't put protection notices on the main page and so on for roughly the reason you describe. --W.marsh 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And the information about what do regarding protected pages is in the text they see when clicking to edit, on view source. —Centrxtalk • 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, but the article still needs to be in CAT:SEMI. Perhaps a new template could be created that includes the category and indicates in a more subtle fashion, a la {{administrator}}, that the article is semi-protected. Alternately, the template could be removed and replaced with the category alone--that would be fine with me too. Chick Bowen 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Seeing this discussion, I created User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2. It puts articles in the same category as the big bulky template and this aligns itself in the top right corner so it's more "out of the way". Feel free to use it. semper fiMoe 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued here. Chick Bowen 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper threats made by User:Fred Chess[edit]

In the page Talk:Treaty_of_Fredrikshamn, Fred Chess is at least threatening to use admin tools, such as blocking, in a dispute he is himself participating. Such is actually conduct that should mean banning of User:Fred Chess. Suedois 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This was already taken care of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive60#Jaakko Sivonen (talk • contribs). Khoikhoi 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Fred Chess banned? What were the sanctions of his improper admin conduct? Suedois 04:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, we don't ban because of one case of admin misconduct. I don't know what measures (if any) might be taken though regarding this. --210physicq (c) 04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Fred was blocked for 24 hours and made a clear acknowledgment of error and apology. That's more than enough to make up for the offense involved. This issue is closed, absolutely and without a doubt. Chick Bowen 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To which it must be added that User:Suedois has just repeated the Jaakko offense and moved the article without trying to reach consensus at talk. The user needs warned against taking such inflammatory actions that may easily spark fire. --Irpen 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Blog to earn more[edit]

Regarding his user page (the user has done only contributions to it since October), would a blanking be justified? I know he has done nothing "wrong", but it kind of tickles me name of the user and the fact that the only example he gives is -- ReyBrujo 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:UP (specifically - What can I not have on my userpage: A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities). semper fiMoe 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Userpage deleted and user blocked indefinitely. --Slowking Man 17:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that anyone has discussed any of this with the User in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam is speedy deletable, wherever it's put, and I don't believe there's a requirement to inform creators when deleting such pages. Particularly when they created the page a month ago and haven't been back since. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppet[edit]

Following this checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!, I blocked all of the sockpuppets involved. However, the user persists in editing using anon IPs. All the ones I have spotted are in the range 141.211.*.* or 141.213.*.*; their main activity is to delete references to Jewishness from biographical articles and names from lists of Jews. Please block any such activity that you see, or let me know. Thanks.--Runcorn 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to check the contributions of all of these "banned sockpuppets" and take note that they are not vandalizing any pages in ANY way outlined WP:VANDAL (civil TALK page-oriented "edit warring" is not a form of vandalism), are responding in talk page with valid arguments, have sources to back up all their arguments for removal of references to Jewishness, and are generally being ignored and even sometimes harassed by Runcorn. Every single name deleted from a list of Jews AND every single mention of Jewishness deleted from an article, has a valid reference or source backing it up. If it does not, then it is because no references exist to suspect any of these people are Jewish. Runcorn fails to provide an pretext for his bans. His reason for each ban is "sockpuppet of whoever" yet, interestingly, it states nothing of the need to ban non-abusive "sockpuppets" in WP:Sockpuppetry solely on the basis that they are sockpuppets. Users being banned for persistently vandalizing pages may be a different story. Furthermore, Runcorn actually SUPPORTS the edits of sockpuppets of other banned users. Specifically ones who are prone to add reference-less mentions of Judaism to people's articles. Finally, for those of you wondering why I'm editing as an anon, if a choose to make an account, Runcorn will simply ban the account as a "sockpuppet," so I can't see a reason for even trying.
Oh, and to give you an example of Runcorn's accusation of "deletion of references to Jewishness from biographical articles" please take a look at TALK:Tadeusz Kantor and Talk:Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński. It will show exactly how these changes are researched, referenced, and explained. 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The user has clearly not read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this."--Runcorn 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Wiki[edit]

I came on here and created a new account. I then started a Wiki on the band, Hundredfold. It was instantly deleted and protected. Why did this happen? Can we undo this so that I can post information about this band? This is a band that tours all over the world and I think people would want to talk about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hundredfold (talkcontribs) .

In the first place, what you created was an article, not a wiki. Wikipedia as a whole is a wiki. Secondly, you created the article under the user name User:Hundredfold, which indicates that you have a vested interest in the band which would tend to violate our WP:VANITY guideline. Thirdly, the article had previously been deleted twice before due to lack of notability as outlined in our guideline at WP:BAND. Fourthly, such sentences as Take one listen to Hundredfold..s VIA SIRENS (Listen Well) and you will understand the industry buzz that has been generated over this talented foursome. does not an encyclopedia make. If, after all of this, you still somehow think your band deserves an article, you can appeal the third deletion of this article (by three different admins) at WP:DRV, but please read WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My colleague might also have mentioned WP:BAND, our policy on the inclusion of music-related articles and WP:N, our policy on the inclusion of any subject. Both are worth your time in reading. When your band is famous enough to not need a Wikipedia article, then we would welcome one. But thanks for your contributions in the meantime! ЯEDVERS 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again, adding to projects[edit]

Hello, Its me again. I wish to be agged to the project. I am quite knowledgable (not in spelling) about space exploration and have spent meany a night up until 2 am reading books and websites reguarding Space. I tried to add myself but was not able to. -Jeffrey- 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No evidence you have tried to join[1], unless you were using only an IP account or another username.--MONGO 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason why you should not be able to edit that page - it's not protected in any way. However please remember that listing yourself on a project doesn't really "do anything" - the best way to help a project is to get out there and edit! Thanks/wangi 22:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)



I didn't see another category for my concern, so I'm posting it here.

Mitsos' user page really disturbs me - I'm not entirely sure how I found it, but I did.

He has a long article on his user page that's a racist polemic. He also has a userbox that declares him to be a white nationalist. Is this allowed?

I know there was a lengthy and controversial discussion on the use of a pedophile userbox, but I never saw the final judgement.


Thank you, NinzEliza 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also see this. Khoikhoi 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war - case decided in a record four days. Hbdragon88 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading I am also umcomfortable... more so about the government box -Jeffrey- 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from ranging from inappropriately political to overtly racist, they're all copyright violations. I've removed them and warned the user. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi guys, we're currently running at 199 CSD articles and it's just hit 0100 here in the UK. Can anyone lend a hand, please? I have to sleep sometime! (aeropagitica) 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, it is really 289 articles :-( (aeropagitica) 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

377 by my count. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Now down to just 14, and a couple of images. Wow. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


This user vandalizes continuously but has never been blocked due to it being registered to Padua college and because the we can never really go through all the warnings before another person may be editing under this IP. Should someone contact the college? --nkayesmith 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


This administrator has been noted for acting with malicious intent, deleting every other article/stub before a significant amount of information can be added to them or simply deleting them whenever he sees fit. Please have a look at the user's talk page and take action.Daham.wick

Nothing seems out of the ordinary here. Is there something more specific you're talking about? – ClockworkSoul 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This user also posted a message on my talk page and I responded on his. Academic Challenger 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The user is referring to this deleted article. A single line about a non-notable student seems like a perfectly reasonable target for deletion to me. – ClockworkSoul 06:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The user ought to read WP:CSD A7 and WP:AGF. Alphachimp 06:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You can challenge deletions on deletion review. A better option might be to find a couple of reliable sources and use those to recreate the article. Note that encyclopedias in general are not in the habit of writing about an undergraduate student, unless there's something extraordinary about him. (Radiant) 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
After checking the thread of conversation, it seems pretty clear this is indeed a vanity piece - can I suggest that the Daham.wick gets a blog - I'm told those are all the rage for young people. --Charlesknight 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page moves[edit]

Is there some bot that can prevent page moves that are obvious attempts to "revert" i.e. circumvent admin decisions based on RMs and community consensus? E.g. Someone reverted the admin page move by using a spelling almost identical to the original page name. It should be easy to use technical means to detect such nearly identical spellings of old page names. --Espoo 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

IP inserting news story to articles[edit]

I just came across this, but haven't the time to deal with it - could someone please review the contributions of User: This IP's been inserting a long rant and an apparent news story into numerous Singapore related articles. I'd start fixing it, but I just don't have the time right now. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted them all. If he continues, I'll give him a stern warning. – ClockworkSoul 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
He wouldn't stop after two warnings, so I blocked the IP for 24 hours. – ClockworkSoul 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleting, Reverting, and Blocking IPs.... sounds like an academic at work.--Daham.wick 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
An academic?? Er, it sounds like quite a normal thing to do to someone adding inappropriate content, refusing to stop when asked, or acknowledge others. -- Chuq 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

7th Lambgina Cavalry[edit]

I believe that 7th Lambgina Cavalry does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like a gaming clan, of which there are thousands, and is of minimal cultural importance. Can other people please provide feedback? I've already marked the article with db-group, but the single editor who's creating the page deleted it. Thanks! Jonemerson 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a db-group tag from a page you created yourself is vandalism - perhaps you should explain this to this single editor, telling him to: add {{hangon}} to the top of the page, and explain why the page should not be deleted on the talk page. (I am not an admin) --nkayesmith 09:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
He did add {{hangon}} to the article, and then removed it shortly afterwards. I don't want to play games and re-add {{db-group}} just to have him delete it, though. It'd be great if an administrator reading this could just handle the situation directly. :) Jonemerson 09:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Joyous! | Talk 11:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Wiarthurhu is using his talk page to troll, and talk about all the classic stuff he is known for, such as talking abotu how we are all evil bitches wanting to ban him for no reason. Why don't we just protect his talk page to put an end to this? Karrmann 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Cowman109. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Essays on user pages[edit]

User:Kmarinas86 is using his/her user page as a way to display a theory of theirs on the universe (which has already been posted on academia.wikia). I hesitated before asking him/her to remove it because the user does contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia, and, while it isn't science, it isn't really offensive. Do you think we should heed the guidelines on this or let things pass? yandman 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that appearing on Wikipedia might give it some (apparent) legitimacy in some people's eyes. We could of course post a disclaimer explaining the situation; but should we bend the rules for every (otherwise useful) contributor? Fourohfour 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In the past one solution has been to put {{userpage}} on top of the page, which can be quite a useful disclaimer in cases such as this. --ais523 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd leave it... the user-page template might be a good idea, but since this is an active user in good standing I wouldn't worry about it. ---J.S (t|c) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We could always ask him nicely to add it himself. Guy 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. yandman 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Issuing a requested block[edit]

I appreciate that according to WP:BLOCK we don't do user requested blocks to enforce wikivacations. That said, I've had a request made of me and I've fulfilled it, I'm ignoring all rules. The request was made in these diffs, and I found it hard to refuse. I don't think anyone's work or home life should suffer because of Wikipedia, and I don't think Wikipedia needs the bad publicity if someone loses their job or home through such an addiction and Wikipedia did nothing to act. I also think it's best to assume such requests are made in good faith. Hence I'm ignoring all rules because I believe that not doing so may be harmful to Wikipedia. Now I'm bringing it here because I may be too close to the user to make an objective opinion on the situation, because I've worked with the user on a number of articles, and also because I may be wrong, there may be consequences I've missed or I may be being gamed. If people want to unblock, I am willing to accept that, and any other censure. Okay, that's what I did and why, so what's the score? Hiding Talk 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems to me you made the right decision. After all, rules are made to be broken. What I might have done is directed him towards the Javascript hack that disables logon, but I can't remember where the silly thing is. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also in the history of your own js file, Mack. :) Thatcher131 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As if there aren't several really obvious ways to bypass that... --Interiot 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as it becomes more hassle than it is worth, this will work for those who don't know how to easily bypass that. Though I'd be scared of accidentally typing in the wrong year. Imagine typing in 3006 instead of 2006... Carcharoth 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Admins can edit other's monobook.js files, so you only need to login as a sock or IP and contact an admin, so no biggie there. --Interiot 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


i would like to ask that my wikipedia post 'danism' be restored,
i havent been given a reason for its deletion but i assume
because it was very short it was for lack of content, i can
provide further refrence material if that is necisary and make
it a more complete article, thank you

Danism was delete before, and since it is not a notable group, it was deleted again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the deletion log, it was deleted as a conflict of interest and then again as nonsense. If you can somehow reference it, you're welcome to try, but it might be better if you provided the reference links here before posting the page to avoid its being deleted again. --tjstrf talk 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to provide the reference links on the talk page? —Doug Bell talkcontrib 06:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Special:Undelete/Danism. Deleting this was the appropriate response. JDoorjam Talk 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Doug Bell:No, because then you'd have to delete the talk page. Less work if it's dealt with in one page. --tjstrf talk 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An unequivocal case of vanispamcruftisement with a dash of complete bollocks for good measure. As Jimbo said in one recent deletion, "abject nonsense on a stick". Guy 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote[edit]

I would like feedback on whether the currently proposed wording of this guideline is an accurate description of the status quo in Wikipedia. Please respond on its talk page. (Radiant) 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo created an edit history to prevent reverse move[edit]

I observed that User:Ghirlandajo has at [2] created an edit history in order to prevent reverse move, as these Viipuri names seem to be his battleground. After his movement, he made reverting impossible without using admin tools by adding history to the redirect. According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves such act deserves block.

I request that edit history to be deleted.

In addition, Girlandajo erased my warning against his undiscussed moves of controversial pages (see [3]) and by its edit comment, accused me of nationalistic trolling. Which is inconceivable. (And of course a grave personal attack.)

It seems to be well-known that Ghirlandajo makes page moves and wages edit wars, without discussing at all. The history of [4] is just an example of edit and move wars wage by Ghirlandajo, and the article's talkpage displays that Ghirlandajo has never bothered to discuss anything about that article.

I request that Ghirlandajo be blocked from editing Wikipedia for some time. Marrtel 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. I advise User:Marrtel to check what double redirects are and how they should be eliminated. WP:AGF is also helpful. As a sidenote, it was me who created all the pages on early Russo-Swedish wars. During half a year that passed there has been intensive revert warring on the part of several nationalist Finnish editors (most of them banned by now) but not a single new sentence was added to my text. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Simply moving the article back would constitute edit warring. Please discuss the move at Requested moves and see if there is a consensus of other editors for one version or the other. Thatcher131 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Taipei American School[edit]

Hi, I believe the page on Taipei American School is largely vanity and should be appropriately streamlined into a article of size proportional to the school's importance. Will a neutral admin please check in on this? Nr9 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an admin function. Any editor can prune the vanity out of an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So if I prune it out I won't get banned? Last time I try pruning it out and they said i was vandalizing Nr9 07:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Explain your edits on the Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles kept on userspace[edit]

I just noticed that User:Alyeska, who had opposed the deletion of several articles (that were in fact deleted after AFD discussions), has decided to keep them in his userspace (see User:Alyeska#Wikipedia_is_a_Failure and User:Alyeska#Restoration_Projects). I've never encountered this situation before, so I would much appreciate comments on this rather unorthodox procedure which in my opinion not only appears to dodge the whole deletion concept, as also seems to open a path for the recreation of the respective articles. Thank you.--Húsönd 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I nominated one of them at WP:MFD. He doesn't seem to have taken it well: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Calton | Talk 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
And this, for good measure. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If a deleted article isn't imminently going to be used to create an encyclopaedic article, then it should be suggested to the user that they take it offline until they do actually intend on working it; otherwise it should be MfDed. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a judgement call, and obviously we usually err on the side of assuming good faith even if it's been there a while. But keeping deleted articles in one's userspace has attracted negative consequences in arbitration cases before. If the articles being in the userspace aren't being a problem, then it's not being a problem - e.g. if the article content is noncontroversial. If the content is somehow controversial or problematic, then probably the first thing to do is to ask nicely what their plans are for them, perhaps offering editorial help. Heck, bring a deleted article back to a good condition is a very nice use of userspace - David Gerard 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Users adding {{user admin}} to their user page[edit]

I have seen some (vandalism-inclined) users adding {{user admin}} to their user page. I asked on Wikipedia:Help desk and they suggested I ask here. What should be done in these circumstances? The most recent one I saw I just blanked the userbox. Here is an example and history. -- Dgies 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is just explain to the user that it can confuse people (i.e. if someone asked him to protect a page or block a user, he obviously wouldn't be able to do it). Khoikhoi 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Adding that template, when you're not an admin, is a form of vandalism itself. I'd leave a note, remove the template, and then report them on the vandalism project. It's hard to imagine anyone clueless enough to do that as a mistake being clueful enough to know how to do it as a mistake. Therefore, the improper placement is somewhat proof of bad intent. Geogre 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
and let's face it - if you remove it (with a note) and they put it back it just confirms what you already think. --Charlesknight 11:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, usage of the template when you're not one is disruptive. I've come across such users before, and they have only proved to be disruptive. There is no reason for the template to be on. – Chacor 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nargis and Nargis (Actress)[edit]

We have articles about two different actresses who apparently have used the same single name. Any ideas on better disambiguation? We definitely need an Nargis (disambiguation) page, but other than that, {Actress) doesn't seem right. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, the Nargis article talks about an Indian actress, where the Nargis (Actress) article talks about a Pakistani actress. The Nargis article also has a warning about a French city of the same name,Nargis, Loiret. I don't know if there are other references to Nargis or not. But as for the two actress articles, it may be best served by going with Nargis (Indian Actress) and Nargis (Pakistani Actress). Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the Indian actress was a superstar and the Pakistani one isn't, that would justify covering the more popular one at Nargis and the lesser known one at Nargis (Pakistani Actress). But for cultural harmony, I suppose you could compromise and go with going with Nargis (Indian Actress). Nargis (Actress) also had several statements that violated WP:BLP so I removed them. Finally, Zoe, this isn't an issue requiring administrator attention, a film or Bollywood Wikiproject page would have been better. This just requires regular input from any reasonable editors. Can you move this whole section please? - Taxman Talk 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons needs patrollers and admins[edit]

Commons is currently suffering a problem of a metric shitload of rubbish and copyvios, and not enough admins to do the cleanup work. Can anyone here help?

Patrollers who speak multiple languages are particularly valuable in this regard, but I expect anyone good would be reasonably welcome to adminship once they can show a reasonable amount of work on Commons itself.

Spanish and Portuguese speakers are particularly encouraged at present, because es: and pt: only allow image uploads directly to Commons.


(I whined enough about it on commons-l myself that I'll be diving into shitwork on Commons soon as well ...) - David Gerard 20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted content request[edit]

Could some admin copy the last version of Áine Chambers before deletion (now a redirect) to here, to try to make it into a more suitable article than the deleted version. Thanks - Рэдхот(tce) 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I would normally, but I think in this instance you are better off asking the deleting admin David.Monniaux. He seems to have deleted it based on WP:BLP criticism, no independent sources, OTRS complaint. I'm not sure what OTRS complaint means, but it might be something official or legal, so I think it's best to check with him first. I'll post him a note to come here and comment. Hiding Talk 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggest that you start over from scratch. There is nothing worth undeleting I think. FloNight 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
For an explanation of OTRS, see Wikipedia:OTRS. It sounds as if someone complained to the Wikimedia Foundation about the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The chances of a decent article emerging from this are slim. The subject appears to be notable solely for wearing short skirts and liking her native town, much to the delight of the Beavis and Butthead tendency among bloggers. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A really odd one[edit]

A while back we deleted Patrick Buri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deletion debate (blanked by Jimbo I'll get to that in a moment). A user, Amoona (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) and numerous invisible friends, created this article and reacted with what I can only describe as hysteria to its deletion, subsequently recreating it, demanding that the deletion debate be blanked, asked that the protected-deleted page be removed, editing every mention of the name Patrick Buri to P****** B*** on talk and project pages - the user clearly has a very close connection to Buri and has a real problem with the fact that the top few of the extremely limited number of Google hits are these debates (top 2 right now: [10]). From an "articles for creation" request [[11]], a day after the fifth of the eight deletions of this article, we see that Buri is a shareholder in Veritee, which markets a "neutraceutical wellness drink" (marketing bullshit for green tea). Seems that the AfD for Veritee was subject to the same nonsense: [12].

So now we have Netquantum (talk · contribs) posting on my Talk about Buri [13], saying that he is in contact with Buri's main company, Bankset, and working on an article which "should prove satisfactory" (which is unlikely since Bankset Investments gets only 110 ghits, as noted at AfD. Looking at the user's other contribs, he has attacked a user (User talk:Petegranger) as part of an apparent campaign to boost Veritee in an article on a competing product at Enviga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which article, incidentally, sucks royally); see, for example, [14] and [15]. We also have the usual unarchived removal of incivility and controversy from the Talk page, and some really strange edits (e.g. [16]). So: is this Amoona returned? Or some other oddball? Guy 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the accounts belong to the same person or not? Jkelly 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It matters for two reasons: first, Amoona is indef-blocked, so if it's the same person then it's block evasion. Second, if it's the same person and they start agitating to re-create the article, then they probably need slapping with the Wikitrout. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Another one of these? Is this going to be one of those things where the page gets deleted because it's pure bullshit (as per WP:ROGUE), and the author goes on a tantrum, with messages to Jimbo Wales and all (e.g., the Linda Christas International School hoax). I'm sorry if this is overly strong a response, bordering on uncivil, but I have to call them like I see them. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The subject exists alright, but there appear to be next to no sources for an article and no evidence at all of significance. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

James Hol[edit]

Anybody, I noticed this user was accusing me of rubbish, that I don't understand. Could you please check this out. James Hol has also vandalized my user page, check it out Kelvin Williams.

Could you please fix this probalem for me Kelvin Williams 01:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. All edits were attacks on other Users. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

incorrect 3RR report[edit]

Can someone look into the admin actions of User:Sasquatch, in blocking User:Anarcho-capitalism for 3RR, while an incorrect 3RR report was filed by User:Donnachadelong. See WP:AN3RR#User:Anarcho-capitalism_reported_by_User:Donnacha_.28Result:12h.29. Intangible 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Anarch was definitely edit warring; it appears to be an issue over the definition of the term "capitalism" as employed by several people. The fourth edit was different from the first three, but seems to serve the same purpose. It's also telling that one of the first actions Anarch took after his half-a-day block expired was to make a similar edit, albeit with weaker wording than he originally made. After this was reverted once more, he has now added {{pov-section}}, which seems like a reasonable solution. (Radiant) 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If the user is edit warring, he should have been blocked for that. Blocking someone for 3RR should be based on WP:3RR. If the admin would have blocked User:Anarcho-capitalism for edit warring, User:Donnachadelong could and have been blocked as well. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Intangible 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It appears that Sasquatch may have considered the fourth edit to be substantially similar to the first three. However, I notice he hasn't yet responded to your query. The other side of the edit war appears to consist of Donnacha and Libertatia, which explains why they have less reverts individually. Of course, two against one doesn't mean the two are right; it may have been better to protect the page rather than block the one party, but that's hindsight. At any rate, an RFC has now been opened, which may help. (Radiant) 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Criterion Collection infoboxes[edit]

It was suggesteed that I post this here so here goes. One of the pages on my watchlist is The Seven Samurai, I have noticed that in the last year, on two seperate occasions (Jan 29th and Sept 28th), the category "Criterion Collection films" were deleted. On Oct 22nd User: Cop 633 went around the category designation by creating an info box listing the CC's films in the order of their original release and began applying it to the films in question. On Nov 8th an anonymous user began removing them and yesterday User: Doctor Sunshine began putting thm back in. I am simply trying to get an administrator to take a look at this situation so that we can avoid an edit war. I understood the reasoning for taking the categories out, but, I have to say that they were less obtrusive than these boxes and they gave one a chance of seeing all of their releases on one page. Thanks for your assistance. MarnetteD | Talk 14:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Boxes are inherently less useful than categories, IMO. They add bulk without adding content. That's just me, though: I really am no box fan. (Don't fence me in, either.) If the purpose is to make finding common elements easy, then a cat works best. If the purpose is to advertise for Criterion, then the box, which forces you to see every film whenever you look at information for one film, is better. I regard the latter to be outside of our purpose. Geogre 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ugh! Talk about your box hell: that article is worse than a UPS wharehouse. It occurs to me that people are sometimes looking for information about the thing at the top of the page, not about "films of Kurasawa," "budget," "preceded by/followed by" in the Criterion Collection, etc. You know a box is one thing, but five is a bit much, and I worry that our poor reader will have so many voices shouting at her eyes, saying, "Read me!" that she won't learn anything about that particular film. Geogre 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As some dick once said: "When I retire I'm going to spend my evenings by the fireplace going through those boxes. There are things in there that ought to be burned.". (Geogre, I enjoy being on the side of the angels for once!). --Docg 14:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing personal page & Death threat issued to Tamilians and WP:NCSLC members[edit]

A vandal who has vandalized my page twice with personal attack phrases and also other pages many times has been caught. Poor guy he forgot to turn off his signature script and the user is none other than a registered user who previously vandalised the Velupillai Prabhakaran page - SnowolfD4. Note the ones below:

1). Please check this topic " Demalu, we want you all dead. Your and your NCSLC bull. Need some good 'ole lynch. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )". He has vandalized my userpage and talk page with foul language and racist remarks. He had to do two changes, one with his signature and the other with his signature removed and both of them from this IP He is caught redhanded trying to vandalize pages with his signature turned on by mistake.

2). His post in my talk page which is clearly personal attack/vandalism

3). FYI, the user has already been blocked thrice in Wikipedia. He has resorted to using abusive language and 'Demalu' means 'Tamilians' and he basically wants all 'F** Tamilians to die, which quite evidently is a bad racist remark and also my WP:NCSLC project closed, which goes completely against Wiki policies.

4). Please notice that the same IP/User has involved in anonymous IP Edits Killing Wiki editors, abusive language and blanking out in another page and also killing of all Tamilians in another usepage as evident from his contributions page

I kindly request you to step in and take stern action so that it can be avoided in the future. Thanks, and expecting your prompt action to maintain Wikipedia norms. If he is continuing even after three warnings including a 24-hour block, I think he is really going berserk. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk  contribs) 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef pending checkuser verification. Naconkantari 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I am not sure if the IP has been blocked or the user as the case seems to be the user masking his IP and mistakenly posting his signature. Can someone please help me with the Checkuser procedure? Thanks Sudharsansn (talk  contribs) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is continued on WP:AN/I. Please reply there. Naconkantari 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about publishing information..[edit]

Hello, I wanted to ask what about adding a page about in important character in my country Palestine.. who has huge contribution and foundation for many institutes and a university, as he's one of the executive commette members in the palestinial liberation organization.. I wanted to ask about that.. so can i or not? (nothing offensive, this person has many published papers and many discoveries written under his own name, he's a Prof.Dr in geology and he's a member of a number of international water resource institutes and the head of the Palestinian Water Delegation) please help me..

Since I don't know the exact detials the best answer I can give is probably. Just make sur the article says why he is significant.Geni 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I will add it then i will inform you to check it out and see.. if it violates i will remove it immediately.

Speedy deletion candidate?[edit]

Could someone look at Peter cramp and its associated AfD and decide whether it's a speedy deletion please - its obviously going to be deleted but it doesn't quite meet {{db-bio}}, {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-attack}}, though it borders on all three. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the questionable material, meaning the entire article, but I've left the page up for the AfD to run its course. Melchoir 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And I speedied it, problem solved -- Tawker 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rafaella Biscayn-Debest[edit]

Hi, I need some help from an admin to sort out the Rafaella Biscayn-Debest page; it is the result of a move of User talk:Rafaella Biscayn-Debest, but I can not move it back because the redirect has been blanked. What I think should be done:

Thanks in advance for any help ! Cheers, Schutz 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur with your analysis, and done. (Note that admins can move a page over a non-trivial history, so that the first two actions can be one admin action.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not know about this, obviously, but it makes sense. Thanks ! Schutz 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th)[edit]

This case went untouched for way more than 10 days, so I'm posting here so an Administrator can close it. All the users were blocked already I believe. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How to follow up on bv template[edit]

This turned up on AIV:

Its talk page has just one warning template, but a final one, {{bv}}. After vandalizing again, is it immediately blockable? Melchoir 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the contribs. This person is obviously just testing and needs to be directed to the sandbox... {{bv}} wasn't appropriate here. Jkelly 00:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but it would look quite strange to follow {{bv}} with {{test}}. Melchoir 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So delete the bv boilerplate and overwrite it {{test}}, or with something handwritten. {{bv}} should really be reserved for malicious vandal accounts. Jkelly 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I had added a test template but I just looked again and he has been blocked by another admin... Cbrown1023 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well, I'll do that next time. Thanks! Melchoir 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
bv might have been a little harsh, but there are a few diffs like this one; I'm not sure jumping to test2 would have been wholly out of order. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw that the editor had made negative and uncyclopedic edits to Ottawa Senators and I gave them a 31-hour block. If anyone felt this isn't justified, feel free to change the block duration. Nishkid64 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse block. -- Samir धर्म 06:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Bowden - request for speedy handling of copyvio[edit]

Yesterday, I tagged Jeff Bowden as a {{copyvio}}. The article initially was nothing but an attack page [17]. Then, it was replaced with a copy/paste of Bowden's official bio from FSU. The current version had changed very little and was still mostly a carbon copy. As there was no good version to revert to, I tagged it as a copyvio.

I have started on Jeff Bowden/Temp and I would like to request that an administrator "speedy" handle the copyvio version. Jeff Bowden is in the news right now and he is one of the top 10 hottest topics in college football this week. Could an administrator go ahead and delete Jeff Bowden and replace it with Jeff Bowden/Temp, rather than waiting the full seven days? Thanks. BigDT 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Morwen - Talk 13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated! BigDT 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More regarding Bobabobabo[edit]

This is an e-mail I received from a person alleging herself to be Bobabobabo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s teacher:

Dear user,
Many of my students at my Private School called the "Learning Community School" are complaining about being blocked from the internet site called "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". I don't know the reason for this six month ban. The private school IP is, which is located in a residential area of Austin.
I has asked some of the student if they vandalized Wikipedia, many of the students are bullying a student, which was a contributor of Wikipedia under the name Bobabobabo which what she told was having problems with some users over Pokamon articles which looking up articles not school related is against the rules, so the three students began creating user names and began vandalizing the pages that Bobabobabo editted. She and I talked about the bullying. I restricted the three students from using the computer until next year.
I hope you can reconsider unblocking the IP and Bobabobabo because what she has told was she being made fun.
Thank you,
6th Grade Social Studies Teacher

It seems to have a ring of truth to it, but is sent from an address, which can of course be faked by anyone. It also doesn't boost my confidence that just a day earlier, Bobabobabo had (as far as i know, falsely) told me that Centrx (talk · contribs) agreed to have her block lifted. However, I agreed to post the e-mail here to ask for consensus on this. I still do not particularly endorse granting or denying this request. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke. The spelling (and grammar) is awful, and she would have sent it from a school email address, not yahoo. yandman 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's just wash our hands of this Bobabobabo business and be done with her and her school. Nlu, if you wish, I can disclose to you the email address of Bobabobabo and compare it with the email address from "Lisa Mercato." Just send me an email, and I will get back to you once I am out of my Marine Bio lecture.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
An idea: why not ask her to send an email from her .edu address in order to verify her title? I don't think that's asking too much; if we're dealing with a 6 month ban, and just considering ignoring her anyway, I don't think another day or two hastle in getting her to send it from an official address would be a problem. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that email, I wonder why the teacher is asking for the block to be lifted. The teacher realizes Bobabobabo was using school computers to edit Pokemon articles, which is against their rules. Why would a teacher ask us to lift a ban that would allow a student to go back to breaking school rules? Because she feels bad the student was bullied? Hmm...Metros232 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk to Can't sleep, clown will eat me - he says he blocked it long term becuase it was an open proxy. I might point out that the teacher's claims hold up - there were a lot of Pokemon changes, but little vandalism. But as a teacher, I can understand why she would be frustrated that her class was blocked. In any case, I def advise talking to Clown. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, you got that email too? I got the email last week because I blocked some of the sockpuppets of Bobabobabo. They claimed it was a 6th grade student, and I still said no. I later received an email from the teacher, and then another one from "Bobabobabo". It's all BS. Nishkid64 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, one of the IPs was an open proxy (the website claims that it allows you to use MySpace at school). The other IP Raul654 said (when we double checked the massive sockfarm listed somewhere above) was a residential IP address, which is more than likely her own (unless the school uses Roadrunner/Comcast, whatever it was).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "IP Info" button on the IP's talk page is a wonderful thing. I've got the school's contact e-mail and I'm writing to them myself. DurovaCharge! 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, open proxy. What school would use that? This is nonsense from start to finish. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Two were open proxies, and then there was (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which belongs to Road Runner. I am not sure about the fourth... —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest sock unblock attempt from this most persistent vandal. (aeropagitica) 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Two more admins have contacted me today saying they have received similar emails and wanted to know what was going on. 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I got one today from Bobabobabo begging to be unblocked. (Can you say "delete button"?) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also used to get e-mails from Bobabobabo (as well as some spammage on my talk) after I blocked some of supposedly Interrobamf's socks (that turned out to be Bobabobabo's per CU), but pretty different in nature - he/she asked me to protect a few Pokemon articles, block users like Ryulong, User:Interrobamf, A Man In Black etc. Needless to say, I have promptly ignored these requests, but the e-mails came from 2 different addresses. Misza13 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

With all 81 sockpuppets, and various attempts to forgo process on the Pokemon articles, I would heavily suggest not giving this one heed. If he/she wants to contribute constructively, he/she can create another account, and handle things better with them. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The question is, how do we deal with this issue? --SunStar Net 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe create a page for admins who receive e-mails from idiots who incessantly ask to be unblocked under various false pretenses, telling them it's all bogus. —Centrxtalk • 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes please, put it on his/her main userpage, perhaps? I just recieved an email, substantially the same as above, with the inclusion of "Johan has a spirit partner named Ruby Carbuncle, who he affectionately nicknames "Ruby."" which I cannot make heads or tails of, maybe its a Pokemon thing? At any rate, a boilerplate email to send upon receipt might be in order at this point. I wonder, however, if this 13 year old might be worth a second chance, after a detailed explanation of socks and not to use them, along with a We Shall Know type warning? Or am I being too optimistic here? It is clear that regardless of whether this person created multiple accounts, or has some bad friends, Wikipedia is very important to him or her. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. I suppose I should not add "This person has pretended to be a 6th-grader, then the teacher, then the principal, but the whole time he was actually just an ass. —Centrxtalk • 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh damn, that's a tough call.... Looks like you chose to be Civil, I'm proud of you. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I feel like starting at new category: 'Admins who have been emailed by Bobabobabo'. Just out of interest, has anyone tried to contact the school itself? Surely that would be the quickest way to confirm for certain that this is nonesense? --Robdurbar 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I also received an email from Grace (Bobabobabo) asking me to unblock her. From the poor level of English it seems obvious to me that Grace (Bobabobabo) and Lisa Mercato who sent the email above are the same person.--Húsönd 18:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you compared the IPs used to send the e-mails? Headers can be forged of course but especially if these are from Yahoo or other webmail providers, the IP used should be obvious Nil Einne 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems that this user may have tried to go to the Japanese wiki Ja:利用者:Bobabobabo. But was promptly blocked when someone recognised the username. If it's the same person, s/he appears to understand Japanese or perhaps s/he was either copying and pasting or used babelfish etc Nil Einne 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for independent board[edit]

Certain editors of wikipedia, most notably User:Tobias Conradi, have repeatedly expressed misgivings about what they see as being possible collusion among administrators. The downside of this is that, unfortunately, the only people who have the authority to really discipline administrators are in fact other administrators, whom these individuals can then accuse of colluding with the administrator whose possible discipline is at issue. To date, I seriously doubt that this is a major issue, but it could become one, particularly as the individual mentioned above seems to possibly be heading for a long-term ban from wikipedia, which he would then, of course, blame on the collusion of the admins. On that basis I have created a proposal for a group consisting of admins, non-admins, and possibly even Wikimedia beaureaucrats and employees which might take complaints regarding admin conduct which they either feel other admins might not be competent to judge and/or as a alternate process, or possibly a higher or lower step in the same process. Basically, something like the police boards of most areas. The proposal is at User:Badbilltucker/Admin Oversight Board, and I would welcome any input, positive or negative. Badbilltucker 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept and the idea. However, this would clutter the work of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Is there any detail concerning what and when to refer to the AOB instead of the AN? -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like it would act as an Administrators's Noticeboard for the paranoid in practice. The rest of the time, it would be a duplicate of WP:RFC/ADMIN. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above. Personally, I think it would work best if it were created as a secondary, or appeal, step for someone who has already applied to the administrators and not been satisfied with the response, or been the subject of administrator action which s/he feels isn't justified. The person presenting the case would be obliged to provide all the evidence for their claim when presenting it. The oversight board could then review the case and either agree to "take on" the case or decide not to take it on. In the latter event, they would be indicating that they substantially agreed with the original decision by not taking on the case. Also, in the rare instances when an admin actually is being considered for discipline, it could potentialy function as the jury in the case. Also, with any luck, the non-admins on the committee would be individuals specifically chosen on a case-by-case basis, maybe from a list of potential members. This might consist of people whose RfA has failed for reasons not related to conduct and/or long-time generally respected editors who for whatever reason have chosen not to seek adminship. Such individuals would probably be most likely to be considered least inclined to automatically support administrator action. Of course, as it is only a proposal, any alternative suggestions are welcome. Badbilltucker 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll maybe suggest that only non-admin users under Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching would join. This is to encourage non-admins to learn adminship before RfA's. It is just like hitting to birds w/ a single stone. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
An interesting idea, but would letting only people who are undergoing admin coaching stop any user who simply never wishes to be an admin from being part of this? Thε Halo Θ 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing a board consisting of trusted non-admins. AFAICS, there are three categories of candidates from this board:

  1. Trusted users who could be an admin, but who are not interested in adminship;
  2. New users who want to file an RfA in the future;
  3. Users who failed an RfA (or who would fail an RfA if they would be nominated).

I cannot really see why the first group would want to be a member of the board; they are either more interested in writing an encyclopedia. I wouldn't encourage the second group to join such a board: if the board would be effective, they would antagonize a lot of sitting admins. And I don't understand why we admins would trust the third group with overseeing us, when we don't even trust them to be an admin themselves. And without approval of the majority of our admins (who are, by and large, a very reasonable bunch of people), your board will not have the authority it needs to deal with problems.

The AOB would only have as much authority as admins would allow it to, and I don't think it will have very much. A better idea would be to create a board of (say, 15) trusted admins and non-admins, elected not only by admins, but by everyone with a low minimum number of edits. That board would then have the authority to arbitrate in conflicts between admins and non-admins, and perhaps also between two admins or two nonadmins. Perhaps we could even involve Jimbo in the selection, to be sure the board has the authority it needs. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:1000, I am the most prolific member of Wikipedia who has never applied for adminship (and who never would) and is still active in the project. But it does not mean that I would not volunteer to take part in the board if its activities make sense to me. Regards, Ghirla -трёп- 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That would work, as it is a large enough number to allow any of the parties on the board to recuse themselves if they are in any way involved in the case. IF we could have one or two of the official staff of wikimedia involved as well, maybe Jimbo and/or anyone else, that would lend even more authority to the decisions, and make it very hard for any admin to ignore it. And it may not be a bad idea to require that any of the non-admins undergo some sort of admin coaching to prepare themselves for being on the board, whether they ever intend to become admins or not. Badbilltucker 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My idea was to encourage the would-be admins to do their homework (i.e. AOB). We really need future admins to be more dispute resolution oriented. This would exclude users who failed an RfA. As for the AOB committee, i don't see 15 people enough to handle this. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember, only those people who failed the RfA for non-conduct-related reasons would likely ever even be considered. So if someone who has been around for a fair time who still hasn't had a featured article, and failed for apparently that reason alone, were to be nominated, they would still have to receive a consensus vote to be on the board. That should exclude any who are too new or "tempermental". Also, as the board's meetings would probably take place in plain sight, either on the channels or on a board, transparency shouldn't be a problem. And, very likely, the majority of these persons would probably still have as many "followers" as "leaders". And if Jimbo or one of the other staff were to agree to take part, something I would dearly love to see happen, then a concern that has been expressed elsewhere could also be addressed by this group. Specifically, the potential legal complications an admin might face if he were sued in court for suspending someone with more money than sense or who otherwise wanted to get attention. If the staff or directors were to themselves be in the group which agrees to the action of the admin, then it's harder to sue the suspending admin for their actions which wikimedia has supported. I don't know how likely this scenario is either, but at least one admin, User:Kingboyk, had expressed concerns about it elsewhere. Badbilltucker 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I see this as fine. Now, what would be the difference between the hearings of Arbitration Committee and the AOB's ones? -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you find people who are experienced in conflict resolution and the like in real life, Magistrates, etc?--ElvisThePrince 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Answers to the above two: the Arbritration Committee, so far as I understand, acts on things beyond simply questions of admin misconduct. This group would deal with nothing else. Also, if anyone knows of any wikipedians who are real-life jurists who would be willing to take part in such a board, and were to be able to verify their credentials somehow, I imagine that those individuals would be looked upon very favorably as potential members. Badbilltucker 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This list may sound funny but it may help...
Wikipedian emergency responders, firefighters, law enforcement workers, lawyers, lay first aiders, psychologists, Wikipedians interested in law. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are over 1000 administrators. What exactly are the chances of collusion?

If the argument is that only a small number of administrators read or edit this noticeboard, or that administrator misconduct gets lost in the other discussions, why not address that, rather than a complicated approach that calls for elections and potentially conflicted "authorities"? In other words, if collusion seems possible in the current processes, why not modify those?

For example, there might be something like a RfRoAA (Request for Review of Administrator Action), where the agrieved party (non-admin) selects (say) two administrators who he/she feels aren't biased, as part of the RfRoAA; two administrators without involvement in the dispute volunteer to join the panel review the actions of the administrator in question; and the four of them select a 5th in some way (for example, from a standing pool of administrators who agree to be available) to fill out the panel. (This is somewhat analogous to arbitration.) If the complaining party has to come forward with two admins (who have agreed in advance to participate), then the process should be underway pretty quickly, and if the issue is simply whether an admin behaved properly, it's pretty easy to get a quick decision. That decision might not be binding in any way, but it at least would address the "collusion" issue, and would provide some help if the issue escalates. John Broughton | Talk 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea in order to avoid conflict of interests as well i would say. Szvest Wiki me up ® 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be an unnecessary complication. We see almost every day on ANI how hard it can be to get a consensus on action against a user or admin, so I don't see much likelihood that a few admins will successfully collude to impose inappropriate sanctions. I don't think a review board will satisfy users who complain that they are being abused by some cabal of admins. -- Donald Albury 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea built from two flawed ideas.

  1. possible collusion among administrators. Collusion means operating in secrecy. Anything on Wikipedia is in the open.
  2. the only people who have the authority to really discipline administrators are in fact other administrators We have arb-com and Jimbo, who really do discipline administrators too.

This sounds like a case of x disagrees with y, but there is a consenus that y is okay. x refuses to accept that consensus. x needs to accept the consensus or build a consensus the other way or leave or fork or face community sanction. If we geared Wikipedia more to allowing x to be right, how would WIkipedia work, with thousands of x's all being right. Ultimately, Wikipedia has to run on agreement. If you can't learn to agree or compromise, how do you aid Wikipedia? Hiding Talk 11:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor point Anything on Wikipedia is in the open. is not strictly true - I've seen any number of complaints on this noticeboard where one admin will say "and I emailed details about that thing to other admins" or "I discussed it with X in an email". --Charlesknight 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus whilst it may in theory be open there are so many places hidden away on Wikipedia that it wouldn't be too hard to hide any discussion, also isn't the admin email list closed, not to mention IRC channels.--ElvisThePrince 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I did anticipate these points, hence my use of the phrase anything on Wikipedia. Now yes, people can attempt to hide stuff, but the problem here seems to be that somebody feels people are complaining that when admin's agree on the admin's noticeboard, that is collusion. Admin's emailing each other can be seen to be collusion, but the place for discussing admin actions is, I believe, the main page associated to this talk page. (Note I'm phrasing carefully now to avoid misunderstanding.) If people think there is a problem with an admin action, they bring it here to be discussed. It doesn't really matter if there has been collusion, since there will then be a discussion of what happened and whether it was right or not. That's what's important, not any claims of collusion. We comment on the issue, not the user. How a decision to act is reached is less important than whether it was the right action to take. I wasn't aware we had an admin mailing list, to be honest. IRC is a whole 'nother ball game, one I have no interest in playing. The point I am making is this. The premise is flawed, because the solution to any problem there may be here is to generate discussion on Wikipedia in a high profile place, and then if there is a problem, act on any consensus or use the dispute resolution process. The problem is not as stated, which is actually a premise born from flaws. Hiding Talk 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that some people feel that the there is a certain element of (some) admins backing each other up regardless of the merits of the case. Whilst most of us may consider that view to be wrong the lack of any perceived accountability towards the no-admin community is I think what the suggestion is seeking to "ensure not only that justice is done, but that it is seen to be done", if you get my drift, it's clear to me that many (some) don't consider Jimbo or Arb-Com to be sufficiently "without fear or favour, affection or ill will" because they are all admins and/or establishment in their view.(Note: Not a view I share I should add).--ElvisThePrince 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think then that we agree on part of what the problem might be, but not the solution. I do think, however, that what admins do isn't dispense justice, but mop up. So there may be disagreement one whether we need to eat off the surface or whether we use plates. Look, "it is a powerful hard thing to please all of the people all of the time". I'm not sure there is a consensus that arb-com is redundant. What seems to happen to me is that people who can't change Wikipedia to their own ends declare this to be the case. Wikipedia should always be an agreeable place, and a place where agreements are made and respected. Agitation is not helpful and not warranted and not part of our policies.
If 99 admins support an action, is the one not supporting right to throw accusations of "admins backing each other up regardless of the merits of the case" or should they assume good faith? Legitimate complaints will always be heard. If someone has a legitimate complaint, they should air it here. There must, though be a point at which there is acceptance of the fact that their legitimate complaint may prove unfounded, and in cases where it is proved so, there must be acceptance of that fact. We should not endeavour to create forum after forum in which people may complain because they feel the last forum was unfavourable. If people feel Jimmy is tainted, then I think they have to leave or fork, because as it stands Jimmy is at the top of the tree. Now I have a healthy disrespect of authority figures too, and I've had my share of disagreements with Jimmy too, but at the end of the day the place is structured with him at the top. The only way to change that is to fork or leave. Hiding Talk 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote Wikipedia:Administrator Review with the same goal, but there wasn't enough interest to go anywhere with it. WP:RFC/ADMIN seems to meet all of the proposed goals of this idea, I haven't seen compelling evidence that this offers anything additional. An existing process with community 'cred' should always trump new red tape, in my opinion. One thing that hasn't really gotten air time in this discussion that I'd be remiss to neglect is this: Most people who find themselves on the wrong side of a block or other admin action probably think it was unjustified. There, I said it. It's the 800lb gorilla that everyone has been carefully avoiding making eye contact with. The number of people hit with a block who say "Yeah, I appreciate the vacation, thank you for the block" is microscopic. If too much credence is given to the pencil threat that admins are colluding against the defenseless editors, it'll encourage a specific group of users who see conspiracies everywhere that they themselves are not responsible for any community censure, it's obviously one of the conspiracy admins. This isn't healthy, and would create a real barrier to keeping the signal/noise ratio positive. Tobias Conrad is used prominently as an example of why this new process should exist, but he's also a good demonstration of the deep flaw in the concept, because a review of his actions shows that he appears to think EVERY admin action that he objects to is an example of abuse and is more evidence of some sort of plot against him. We'd be doing both him and the encyclopedia a disservice if we gave him an alternative to assuming good faith, because WP:AGF is the foundation our discussions here must be built on. - CHAIRBOY () 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While not disagreeing that the question of collusion and group admin misconduct is a generally fairly ridiculous one, I think that the purpose of having such a board is to hopefully fend off the possibility of the question being asked in the first place. If there is no "higher authority" or independent authority (and the arbitration committee is almost all admins), some irresponsible journalist (yes, there are such things) might be able to create a probably unsubstantiated story out of the accusation which would damage wikipedia, true or not. In practice, the oversight board would really only be called into existence when one of the rare cases which have substantiation is introduced. Otherwise, all that would happen would be rulings to the effect of "insufficient evidence put forward to justify a hearing", which would be given out by the few "clerks" of the board. I would think around 95% or more of the cases presented would clearly fall in this category. That being the case, only those in the "board clerk" group examing the cases would be involved, and then only to the point of reviewing the case and finding it to lack evidence. The number of "cases" this board would actually "hear" would probably be in the range of no more than a few dozen per year, if that. Also, having the spectre of the potential of such independent overview hanging over their head would probably make potentially abusive admins even less likely to engage in misconduct in the first place. If, as I think, two dozen cases per year would be the probable maximum heard, I would think maybe six total non-admins editors would ever be required to "fill out" the board (two or three per case), and we probably have at least half that number of non-admins already listed as agreeing to the proposal. Secondly, as has been indicated above, if an at least somewhat independent group were to rule that a given admin in a given case did not act improperly, the likelihood of an aggrieved party filing a costly civil suit against that admin would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, on the basis of the board's "not guilty" ruling. I hope it is understood that this would not be a regular active part of wikipedia culture, but just an "emergency clause" brought into play when the situation calls for it. Shutting up now. :) Badbilltucker 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're underestimating how much traffic a board like this will attract. —Doug Bell talkcontrib 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dramaticaly so. - CHAIRBOY () 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but that would only affect the "clerks" who review the claims, not the total number of cases heard, which would all require substantiation to qualify. Maybe a dozen "elerks" would be required, and they could be gathered from Wikipedia:Esperanza or similar organizations. Badbilltucker 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the tone here, but seriously, would no journalist think to write a story noting that whilst articles languish needing clean-up, a dozen or so Wikipedians are sorting out what arguments between users should be settled by a committee of grandees? I really do take the points you make Bill, but I don't see the problem. And what sort of authority is this board going to have? And where will it fit in with arb-com? And what's going to happen when a number of users accuse this board of collusion? Do we set up another board and fill it with people the complainant can hand pick? If you think an admin is out of order raise it here. If there are a few of you, start an RFC. We've got a dispute resolution process already, and mostly it asks us to talk about the problem, not create and empower committees and clerks to the committee who get to discuss which issues should be discussed. I'd guess this committee would need a secret mailing list and before you know it, blammo. The arb-com is voted for, and is mandated by the community. If people feel there are too many admins on the committee, maybe those people should stand up and run. Hiding Talk 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break and my own random comments[edit]

  1. If a user feels he is being ganged up on there is already the AMA. How is this different?
  2. Any findings made by a board of non-admins could only be advisory, one or more admins would have to carry out any actions. If there really is a cabal, what makes you think another board will help? If there is not a cabal, why would review of the admins' actions on the noticeboards not be sufficient?
  3. If your board has an admin or two who carry out findings that are not supported by admin consensus, isn't that wheel warring?
  4. If you start out with a dozen clerks, you might have two active at the end of the first month. I speak from experience.
  5. If you give the clerks screening authority to bring cases before the board then they're not really clerks, at least not in the same sense as arbitration and checkuser clerks, who have no screening authority. Arguably you would need even more stringent selection procedures for the clerks than for the whole board.

Count me as not a fan. Thatcher131 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Thatcher and fear such a board would cause more problems then it might solve. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your effort to help but I have my concerns also. Likely it is another place that I'm going to need to put on my watchlist so I can stay on top of the major issues and problems. Already too many of those. Be prepared for clueless newbies that do not understand dispute resolution and will leave discouraged no matter what you do, experienced users with longstanding grudges against each other, trolls and abusive sockpuppets. You will get plenty of these, our other boards do regularly. FloNight 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd want to see some evidence of actual collusion, as opposed to concerted action against a vandal. I think we already have too many places people have to go to look for help, to the point where I suspect many users never manage to find it. Not that I'm opposed to oversight in principle. Perhaps ArbCom should have fast-track procedure for alleged abuse of admin tools? Most such allegations, though, turn out to be routine "rouge admin abuse", as noted above. Guy 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the proposal has structural flaws, as discussed above. I understand the underlying purpose — to fend off charges of cabalism — but I think that's ultimately a doomed cause. The people who raise the most vocal and vociferous accusations of grand conspiracies are also the sort who engage in vexatious and meritless litigation. A painstakingly independent oversight board isn't going to convince these people to change; they'll just declare that The Cabal has co-opted the board as well and go off to WR in high dudgeon, just as before. Furthermore, I think that expecting journalists to understand all the ramifications of the Wikipedia power structure is over-sanguine. I think we're better off leaving that 5% or whatever of justified cases to go to the ArbCom (whose power to examine all parties is a strong deterrent against vexatious litigation). Accountability is good, but I think this proposal would drain off a great deal of energy trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable, which would be better employed in our present dispute resolution mechanisms. Choess 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For a long view, the accusations have always been with us. That does not mean that they can be dismissed, but it does mean that the existence of a disgruntled/paranoid (these are poles in the continuum, not a characterization of any one editor) people who are accusing the project of being run by a group of abusers is not, by itself, a compelling argument. There are several problems that have arisen. The first is that every user now has the ability to plead to any "court" on Wikipedia, but users either don't believe it or don't know how or don't believe that the hearing will be fair. The question is whether we have several others to agree and if there is specific illustration of the unfairness. I know that there are groups of people who cover for one another, and I, too, have felt that we have had some animals more equal than others, but that has to be addressed person by person. As for not knowing how to present a case, we are at a loss. Do everyday users know what WP:AMA is, where it is, how it works? Do they know RFAR? Do they know where the mediation pages are? None of that is immediately clear, and none of it is particularly easy to use. Even after finding and reading instructions, users can find lack of action, and if they're really off base with their complaints, they may get convinced that that is part of the problem, too. The credibility (not believing it will work) is another matter. Actions against administrators are becoming slightly more common, and I honestly believe that we are on the downhill side of the effort to get administrators held to the same standard as everyone else. Meanwhile, we have been coming up with a ton of informal processes to help out in these cases, such as the mediation cabal, and I'm not against anything new that relieves the pressures, even though I think we need more education about existing procedures than new procedures. Geogre 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I hold the opinion that admins are largely not accountable to the user community (would be 'not at all accountable' except that ArbCom sometimes takes action in extreme cases) and that this is detrimental to us as admins and Wikipedia as a whole. As such, I'm very much in favor of making admins more accountable, but don't know that this proposal would particularly achieve that. As the 'review panel' would be no more answerable to the community for their positions than the admins are, the dynamics and outcome would likely be identical. ArbCom is, to an extent, answerable to the community and thus indirectly serves to address this need of admin accountability, but ArbCom is flooded with cases and never takes action against 'minor' admin improprieties... which can have a major impact on the individual users on the receiving end. Every week I see admins calling users trolls and vandals over trivial content disputes... while other admins block users for the exact same sort of statements. I see admins editing and even edit warring on pages and then protecting them - despite this being one of the very few things we are specifically told not to do. I see admins threatening or even placing blocks for users who disagree with them about how to phrase something as NPOV. Et cetera. Nearly every time I point out that an admin has done something which is against policy I get, 'whose side are you on - the admins or the trolls'? Or 'why are you enabling them'? As if it were an 'either / or' situation... rather than the reality where users and admins can do the wrong thing and both ought to be called to account for it. To me it seems obvious that the inability of the community to easily remove an admin who has 'lost their trust' (the standard for becoming an admin in the first place) leads inevitably to community dissatisfaction and anger towards admins. Even if admins didn't often react with hostility to gentle nudges towards civility, and behaved with scrupulous fairness towards the user base... still this would breed considerable dissatisfaction at perceived unfairness. As we are not all saints this is instead magnified to seething hatred in some quarters, to the detriment of the entire project. --CBD 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree to a certain extent with CBD's concerns. If we admins want to change our own culture we can do it. If we don't, no new committee or board will be able to either. Thatcher131 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah but the problem is that there is a section of the community (although a minority) that thinks that such self-regulation has and is failing, this isn't at all helped by the fact that all the members of the arb com are admins (yes I know the mantra admins are the most respected, yadda, yadda, but your preaching to the choir here it's not me you have to persuade), so it again comes down to "Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done." which this suggestion would seem to address, of course it will never persuade everyone but it's my feeling that it would persuade most (or at least more).--ElvisThePrince 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Resources of Sheboygan Club[edit]

Resources of Sheboygan Club (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log): Single purpose account. m:Role account? John Reid ° 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See [18]. John Reid ° 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Threats of legal action[edit]

An IP address ( recently removed content from the War Eagle article. After I reverted their change, which was not explained, I received this message threatening legal action if something wasn't done within 48 hours. I know this is an absolutely zero tolerance kind of situation on Wikipedia, but I'm unaware of the process. The link above is a diff to the IP's comment on my page; the content being removed can be seen here. Thanks, -- AuburnPilottalk 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like we need a WP:RS cite on the bit about Shelnutt's dismissal, and the anon needs to be informed of our no legal threats policy. I find it just a bit ironic that the anon is insisting on adding a blatant copyright infringement from AP, with the "do not copy this" note included. Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The legal threats are unacceptable, but WP:LIVING as well as RS need to be applied to this portion of the article. Newyorkbrad 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This person now seems to be using multiple IP addresses in order to blank the same content:,, and -- AuburnPilottalk 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The information was negative, unsourced, and about a living person. WP:BLP requires that such is removed immediately, without ques