SouthernNights (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1,015: | Line 1,015: | ||
==[[User:Brian.gratwicke]] and his edits to [[Robert Mugabe]] and my [[User talk:Ddstretch|Talk Page]]== |
==[[User:Brian.gratwicke]] and his edits to [[Robert Mugabe]] and my [[User talk:Ddstretch|Talk Page]]== |
||
There is persistent vandalism of [[Robert Mugabe]]. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in [[WP:BLP]] applies. In the last case of vandalism, [[User:Brian.gratwicke]] inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my [[User talk:Ddstretch|talk page]], and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
There is persistent vandalism of [[Robert Mugabe]]. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in [[WP:BLP]] applies. In the last case of vandalism, [[User:Brian.gratwicke]] inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my [[User talk:Ddstretch|talk page]], and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I think you went too far by giving a vandalism warning to an established editor for a good faith and legitimate edit (even though the edit was POV). Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid (although such a POV word should have references to support it, along with wording like "seen by opponents as illegitimate". Either way, this wasn't vandalism and you should have accused him of such.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:38, 19 August 2007
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Current issues
Frustrating misrepresentations
Over the past few weeks, I've been involved with editing Herbert W. Armstrong, after I was brought in as an uninvolved third party during an article dispute. One of the other editors in the dispute has done an amazing job of assuming bad faith. He accuses me of trying to start a revert duel here, and then claims that my logging off due to a low battery was part of an attempt to bait him into a WP:3RR violation. He says that I and an anon editor opened up a complaint against him, when we posted to it after someone else opened it -- before I was involved with the article. He also says that we "cite policy incessantly".
When I attempted to summarize his extremely lengthy talk page comments so that other people could more easily get a sense of what the discussion was about (summarizing everyone else's posts in the same style, and collapsing the original posts), he told me that he "won't allow anyone to summarize or characterize in their own words what I wrote." He says that I have "unfortunately put yourself in a position to get brushed aside". He has repeatedly characterized himself as a "new editor", despite having made his first edit in October 2006.
He also said that I restored a deleted comment of his, when it was someone else who did it, because they felt the deletion put their response out of context.
I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope here. I don't think this is near the end of the dispute resolution process yet, but with the frequent attacks on my motives, I'm getting close to washing my hands of the whole thing, and I don't think that will be good for the article, or for later editors.
Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thoughts: I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment here, as I am not an admin; my apologies if I am out of place. I believe the user in question is a very bad wikipedian. He explicitly asserts ownership, always assumes bad faith, is consistently insulting even in his initial transactions with other editors, uses numerous sockpuppets and not-exactly-puppet dynamic IP's instead of his real account despite numerous warnings (which breaks up his edit history, which is going to be tough on the mediators / arbitrators), edits Talk pages, and is a zealot who will not "permit" use of mainstream sources like TIME magazine on his highly-idealized biography of a religious figure. His sole contributions to Wikipedia are about this religious sect, and are highly POV. He has exhausted the patience of several editors, and I am very sorry to read that he's exhausting you, too. I think the solution for the article is to go to arbitration ASAP unless he is able to produce a comprehensive NPOV version by this weekend (FYI to other editors: the problem user asked for several weeks to rewrite the article; time is almost up). I do not think there is a solution to the editor himself. He interprets courtesy as an attack and will not accept help, correction, or reproof from administrators. I've never seen anything like him before in my Wiki experiences. -- Lisasmall 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- From the page header: "This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the English Wikipedia. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here."--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: I filed an WP:RFARB here.--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How many articles does Wikipedia delete per day?
A few months ago I recall a stastic that this site deletes around 5000 pages a day. Been looking for confirmation of that and can't find it anywhere. I'll accept estimates from the CSD regulars if that's the best we can do. Would appreciate help! DurovaCharge! 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This (warning, may take a while to load) shows that the last 5000 deletions (including images, pages, categories, templates, redirects, and so on) took place over a span of last 24 hours 55 minutes. 5000 pages in 24 hours is probably a little high based on that (although it tends to be higher when school is in, thanks to the friends of gays). Maybe 4000 a day. Neil ム 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here are the stats for all of august:
+---------------------+----------------------+ | date(log_timestamp) | count(log_timestamp) | +---------------------+----------------------+ | 2007-08-01 | 5375 | | 2007-08-02 | 5042 | | 2007-08-03 | 7971 | | 2007-08-04 | 3733 | | 2007-08-05 | 5767 | | 2007-08-06 | 9873 | | 2007-08-07 | 4379 | | 2007-08-08 | 3551 | | 2007-08-09 | 4240 | | 2007-08-10 | 7756 | | 2007-08-11 | 4273 | | 2007-08-12 | 7056 | | 2007-08-13 | 5546 | | 2007-08-14 | 4425 | | 2007-08-15 | 3214 | +---------------------+----------------------+ 15 rows in set (31.88 sec)
But how much if NawlinWiki went on break... --W.marsh 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- That user only has bout 200/day, so not much of en effect - not even if our #1 admin in terms of deletions, misza13, left would there be much of a dent :) --ST47Talk·Desk 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any thoughts about breaking this down by ns? --After Midnight 0001 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Miszabot deletes mostly images though, right? I thought we were talking about articles. NawlinWiki's stats there are pretty staggering. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually,Miszabot archives talk pages. Misza13 does deletions, but is presumably a real person. Natalie 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm making an effort to get the word out and address this on the non-Wikipedian side of the equation. When more people understand the scope of this project we may succeed in reversing the trend. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Think about all the wasted effort that goes into creating pages that get deleted (and the admin efforts to delete them). Granted, some are created as vandalism. But I'm sure many if not most are due to users not creating appropriate articles/uploading inappropriate images. It is rather staggering. I guess that's what your hinting at Durova? Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm making an effort to get the word out and address this on the non-Wikipedian side of the equation. When more people understand the scope of this project we may succeed in reversing the trend. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually,Miszabot archives talk pages. Misza13 does deletions, but is presumably a real person. Natalie 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There you go, per namespace:
date | (Main) | Talk | User | _talk | Wikipedia | _talk | Image | _talk | Template | _talk | Category | _talk |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-08-01 | 1584 | 273 | 162 | 64 | 8 | 1 | 3015 | 56 | 39 | 16 | 141 | 11 |
2007-08-02 | 1376 | 907 | 104 | 83 | 12 | 3 | 2272 | 39 | 103 | 11 | 122 | 7 |
2007-08-03 | 1406 | 3790 | 143 | 63 | 9 | 0 | 2366 | 47 | 56 | 8 | 76 | 7 |
2007-08-04 | 1272 | 336 | 98 | 53 | 30 | 7 | 1498 | 27 | 62 | 1 | 344 | 5 |
2007-08-05 | 1295 | 2166 | 99 | 24 | 18 | 6 | 1914 | 70 | 39 | 4 | 120 | 12 |
2007-08-06 | 1462 | 5834 | 208 | 171 | 20 | 2 | 1926 | 124 | 56 | 17 | 51 | 2 |
2007-08-07 | 1352 | 242 | 205 | 232 | 15 | 6 | 2188 | 34 | 28 | 2 | 68 | 6 |
2007-08-08 | 1378 | 244 | 164 | 164 | 7 | 7 | 1407 | 16 | 41 | 13 | 100 | 9 |
2007-08-09 | 1661 | 293 | 227 | 250 | 14 | 5 | 1281 | 26 | 350 | 15 | 108 | 10 |
2007-08-10 | 1359 | 4379 | 227 | 48 | 10 | 3 | 1137 | 14 | 36 | 18 | 499 | 23 |
2007-08-11 | 1166 | 235 | 122 | 153 | 21 | 11 | 2153 | 201 | 35 | 0 | 168 | 3 |
2007-08-12 | 1031 | 3398 | 145 | 72 | 8 | 3 | 1841 | 38 | 378 | 8 | 118 | 16 |
2007-08-13 | 1562 | 2230 | 256 | 184 | 13 | 1 | 931 | 80 | 122 | 56 | 88 | 22 |
2007-08-14 | 1458 | 253 | 115 | 66 | 192 | 45 | 1650 | 24 | 329 | 65 | 178 | 28 |
2007-08-15 | 1501 | 769 | 142 | 78 | 8 | 6 | 2131 | 35 | 37 | 3 | 84 | 14 |
Images seem to be most active, although my bot does at most one third of that. Mainspace is less fluctuating. Talk: stats are tained by DerHexer occasionally mass-deleting talk pages of redirects. There's also the BJAODN spike in Wikipedia: on 14th. Cheers, Миша13 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (I tweaked the table headings a bit to make them narrower. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks, that's interesting. I think that the image numbers are true for this period also, as opposed to most of July when we were clearing the 30 day backlog. --After Midnight 0001 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If these are straight log counts, one small tweak is needed to adjust the numbers. Restorations are in the deletion log, and are effectively a -1 to the pages deleted per day count. In January, when I last did a detailed review, restores were runing about 1.1% of all log activity. This was down from ~2% in December 2006. So net deletions is about probably about 96% to 98% of the numbers. (User space, followed by Main space were the spaces with the highest restore rate, but even user space was below 4%.) GRBerry 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I once asked what was the total number of deleted pages in total. Ever. I never got an answer, but I think it is safe to say that the dead (pages) on Wikipedia outnumber the living (pages). Carcharoth 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
User:TTN performing large-scale AWB edits, merges and redirects without clear consensus
This needs administrator attention but I don't know where to report it. I'm posting here on the advice of User:Parsifal after getting his opinion on the matter. TTN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been making hundreds of high-speed AWB edits to add merge or move tags, then doing the redirects himself soon after with edit summaries that claim there is consensus or no discussion. In many cases, he did not allow sufficient time for consensus discussion to take place, or did not make a good enough effort to verify that people were aware of the discussion in the first place. I don't believe he is necessarily violating policies - in fact, he appears to be interpreting several of them (most notably WP:FICT, WP:BRD and WP:N), but his merges are clearly disruptive to a large number of editors (as can be seen on his talk page), and my attempts to talk to him about this have not appeared to help matters at all.
The pages he's moving relate to multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Video games (which I'm participating in actively). Many editors on the Wikiproject page have expressed concerns about his behavior and approach, but he refuses to stop. Most of the time, he counters by citing WP policies (even in the face of questions about how he's interpreting those policies), and in some cases stating that he's going to continue on his campaign because he knows what's right. (Here's an example of such a statement: [1]) His AWB tag placements and mass redirects and are easy to see in his contribs because there are so many of them. There is also a long discussion on the CVGProj Talk page, where we basically made almost no headway and in which I repeatedly advised him to slow down and be patient with the discussion. (His general tone came across to me as "Can I merge it now? Can I? Huh?")
Would someone please take a look and either ask him to stop and respect consensus, or advise me where the correct place is for me to post this notice? I thought about WP:AIV, but I wasn't sure if this would be considered vandalism or not. I also considered WP:RFC or WP:RFC/U but he is moving so fast with the automated edits, by the time an RFC could do anything, the damage would be unrecoverable.
Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would you mind giving an example or two of where he went ahead and performed a merge against consensus? Where there was a discussion, and the proposal was defeated, but he merged anyway? i said 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to get these together as I have time. I haven't done a great deal of research into this (haven't had the time, and I'm on a tight time budget now as well), but here's some evidence of his tendency to push things through:
- "There is no discussing this part" (preceded and followed by reverts)
- Merge discussion on Talk:Scrubs (TV series) - please read TTN's replies to the discussion. So far, everyone who has responded to the initial merge proposal has opposed it, and TTN has insisted on pushing through a merge anyway.
- This seems to be the pattern in almost every merge discussion TTN takes part in.
- I cannot find a specific example where TTN violated a clear consensus, but see this diff and a few diffs following that one (linked to the CVGProj discussion) where he merged without a clear consensus.
- That discussion also has at least one user calling out TTN's apparent general practice of discounting the opinions of people who have dropped out of the discussion or haven't been able to reply in a timely manner.
- I'll try to get these together as I have time. I haven't done a great deal of research into this (haven't had the time, and I'm on a tight time budget now as well), but here's some evidence of his tendency to push things through:
- I hope this will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the first diff that was ok per WP:BOLD, and it was reverted without discussion. There should have been discussion by the reverter, and there was not. In the Scrubs discussion, TTN is backed by policy and guideline, (WP:NN, WP:V, WP:WAF) the opposes were WP:ILIKEIT or similar related opinions. As for Goomba, I read the discussion and when TTN merged them, he had asked at least twice for anyone else objecting, and no one did. The converstation had waned. The following revert war (including an admin) was awful. I personally agree with TTN on most matters relating to cruft, but I do agree he is a bit more agressive than he needs to be. i said 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hope this will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to address some points the next time I have some time, but quickly I agree that I am fairly harsh and pushy, but there really is no alternative way to go about it sometimes. People are used to the current state of the site. They think it is fine to cover topics without establishing some sort of real world notability, so they either ignore the set, totally non-disputed policies and guidelines, really cannot grasp them at all, or they just completely avoid the topic all together, usually throwing comments back at me any way that they can (usually about the merging).
- I have to make it clear to those who ignore them that they cannot be ignored or passed off as nothing, explain it to the people that just don't get it, and deal with the turnabout people without trying to stab myself. They don't take it very well at all, and they are the majority of the people that I deal with. That requires constant pushing (or else everything just somehow falls apart), so sometimes that may leak into normal discussions that actually deal with how the articles can fit the guidelines and policies. I should probably watch that a little more, but otherwise, there really is no actual alternative other than just dropping any sort of merging/redirecting, which I don't plan on doing. TTN 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that more people support TTN's merging, and as pointed out, there doesn't appear to be any clear violation of policy or consensus going on, so I withdraw my notice. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I support genuine mergers, but not mindless redirects. The JPStalk to me 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Administrator category proposal
I edit mostly science articles, and I don’t know how many times I’ve had to go looking for a science-related admin to help with a page move, topic specific help, or what-ever. With this in mind, I would suggest grouping admins by category (as well as by the alphabetized list). Basically, a Wikipedia:List of administrators of 1,100+ admins really doesn’t help editors find the help they need. In addition, with the growing number of admins, I would suggest that there is some effort using (requiring to have) admins that are knowledgeable in certain articles (or afds) to resolve issues (or close) in those areas to which they edit in or have knowledge in. An admin who was a degree in the history of science, for instance, would be well-trained to close on science history related afds, rather than random admins. In sum, I suggest that admins be categorized in some way and that there be some effort in the future to have admins close on afds to which he or she has knowledge in. In this manner, countless hours of volunteer work of well-intentioned editors can be spared, through needless mistakes. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- We're janitors, not golden robed priests. We don't need to be a historical expert to see that an AfD on The Ascent of Austrian Royalty shows a strong consensus to keep, etc. Categorizing by skills like 'history merges', 'AFD closers', 'Speedy deleters', etc would be more useful, if you were to do such. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suggest asking at the relevant wikiproject; most of those have a bunch of admins involved. >Radiant< 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, Radiant and I agree on something. Yeah! Find the appropriate project from the project list and ask them for help. Start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory.Rlevse 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the loose ideas. The issue, however, is not just about afds; a grouping would be useful for subtleties, e.g. admins who like doing cleanup in the image categories, admins who like doing page moves, admins who can see the sub-topic (i.e. topic specific) issues in drawn-out edit wars, admins who like doing page protects, etc. I spend enough time as it is on project pages, this really doesn’t help speed the process. A good point to start would be a proposal to have all admins categorize themselves, beyond the standard:
- Category:Wikipedia administrators
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (science)
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like doing page protects)
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like to mediate)
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (history)
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like to help in troll issues)
- Category:Wikipedia administrators (images)
These are just rough ideas, but aren’t editors and administrators supposed to work together? Thus, when I see comments such as “maybe we should hide our mops for a while”, etc., I see an elusive wall building. Adding categories would help break down the wall, i.e. bring more of a connection between administrators and the editors. This is an idea (clean-up project) that I was hoping that one or two admins would take the lead on and get the other admins involved. --Sadi Carnot 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a very terrible idea, but I suppose the bureacracy watchers will disagree? :) Seriously though - if you asked me about page moves or history merges I'd have to point you to someone else, but I can more or less deal with vandalism, page protections and images, for example. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any harm in administrators categorising themselves as such, as long as there is no requirement to do so. I wouldn't say this is bureaucratic if there are no requirements or prerequisites to placing yourself in such a category. Of course, we'd have to work on the above names, as calling an administrator to help with a "troll" might be quite insulting if such a person isn't a troll. WP:CREEP wouldn't apply... as they're on categories, not instructions. --Deskana (banana) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Might I suggest: Category:Wikipedia administrators (who dislike being in categories) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't see the purpose of more categories. Everyone knows I'm an admin, that should be enough... besides, there's very little a regular editor can't do when it comes to plain article editing. An expert user is the same as an expert admin. David Fuchs (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
My inner smartass couldn't resist.[2] DurovaCharge! 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here’s an example of where an editor was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. From the discussion, we see that admin categories are very useful for users (or serious editors) in need of janitorial assistance, i.e. clean-up things they can’t do on their own, because they don’t have admin tools. As User:Lar (admin) puts it: "It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists". --Sadi Carnot 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- One wonders why said user could not have asked a normal editor at WP:IRAN if he was after someone who spoke Farsi. Oh indeed checked Category:User fa. Is there some reason why only administrators are fit to pronounce on spellings? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- One doesn't need administrative tools to do translations, though. Couldn't such questions be addressed by, say, the Languages Reference Desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this idea at all. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- What is the point of being an admin then if you’re not willing to make yourself available (by category) for users who need your help? --Sadi Carnot 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Being an admin has nothing to do with specific knowledge categories. Admins have the special ability to do a few special things, none of which have to do with actual content. I don't see the point, what is worse is that I see people taking an admin's(science) opinion of a user's(science) opinion.
- The categories relating to specific type of behavioral problems may be handy, I seem to remember there was a cat for admins who would deal with heated issues, forgot what it is though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting news article about attacks on WP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm is a story about a new tool, Wikipedia Scanner. It has determined that quite a few organizations POV push on WP including CIA, Democratic Party, Vatican, Diebold Company. Therefore, everyone should be alert that is someone is stubborn or POV pushing, he or she may be working for an organization trying to improve its image or attack another article. Polounit 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting, and that is only a small part of them that would be detected by this tool, because I am guessing it only looks at anonymous users, who’s IP addresses are visible, as it would require sysop rights to see the IP address behind a registered user. I have noticed this on many occasions though, that companies modify the articles about themselves. I wish some of the admins closing AfDs would keep this in mind when examining the notability criteria, and not just going with the majority, and closing as keep so as to not offend the company. I’m guessing it’s the same in paper encyclopaedias though, as regards governmental propaganda. The difference is most paper encyclopaedias make no mention of products, especially such as little known software. What I find more worrying is people pushing badly established points of view on articles most wikipedians know little about. For example on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, there is a lot of discussion, which can only have a positive effect, but on some articles relating to the countries that used to form Yugoslavia for example, there are much fewer people who are knowledgeable on the subject, and racist or propaganda can leak through undetected. Jackaranga 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- (Just a minor correction) Sysops can't see the IP behind registered accounts either, actually only checkusers can do that, and even then only if they have good cause to believe you're sockpuppeting or they have some other compelling reason. That scanner is a useful tool, though, as I'd guess plenty of people really do just click the "Edit this page" button. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The news story seems to have travelled. It merited more than a page in today's El Periódico de Catalunya, the best-selling newspaper in Catalonia (article is here at time of posting, but gets archived quite quickly). It has also apparently been picked up on Canadian Radio, who claim to have dug out some silly goings-on from 2006 involving Montreal City Hall and the article Frank Zampino... just to let people know! Physchim62 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- (Just a minor correction) Sysops can't see the IP behind registered accounts either, actually only checkusers can do that, and even then only if they have good cause to believe you're sockpuppeting or they have some other compelling reason. That scanner is a useful tool, though, as I'd guess plenty of people really do just click the "Edit this page" button. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
BCBot and commons
Ive started a bot to move images to commons please see User:Betacommand/Commons βcommand 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your list is broken at "Wikihermit", FYI. Incidentally, how did you make that list? I see I am on there. I have not had too much involvement in images, and it doesn't look like enough to be all admins. Prodego talk 05:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It started out as a subset of admins, (admins that I know) and then I tossed a few non-admins that I know I can trust. then there was the approval process. βcommand 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Where was the discussion, apart from the Bot approval discussion? Was there a discussion at Wikipedia:Images (or where-ever the most active image area is)? Not everyone watches the Bot approval process. Also, when you say you've "started a bot", I think you might mean you have plans for a bot. The bot has been approved for trials (50 edits or 7 days), but doesn't seem to be running yet. You might want to word things differently, as I, for one, read "Ive started a bot", to mean that you were in the process of running it and operating it. Carcharoth 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It started out as a subset of admins, (admins that I know) and then I tossed a few non-admins that I know I can trust. then there was the approval process. βcommand 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well the bot is currently operating, it transwikis images per the instructions. βcommand 09:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can see, this is still just a trial run. Can you point us to where the results of the trial run will be discussed? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the BRFA page... Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be OK to post links at the BRFA page to the discussions about this function? Carcharoth 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't it be? :-D Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be OK to post links at the BRFA page to the discussions about this function? Carcharoth 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the BRFA page... Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can see, this is still just a trial run. Can you point us to where the results of the trial run will be discussed? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Abusive and disruptive behaviour by Yamla
I was blocked for no reason and experienced abuse from Yamla in my attempts to contest the block. I could not raise the attention of adminsitrators to unblock me and so I proceeded to alter my talk page continously. I have seen that this attracts the attention of some. However, instead of helping me, an honest editor who has attempted to contribute postively to this laudable encyclopaedia project, Yamla assumed wrongly that I am a vandal and refused to help. Instead, this user protected the talk page of my account as if I was a vandal. This user has also used false pretenses to remove a suggestion that I made when I was blocked. Yamla has falsely claimed that I made a personal attack, which is not true. Please block this aggressive user or suggest a wikibreak, because this administrator is clearly abusing the user's admin powers. WP:AGF is a policy that Yamla has apparently abandoned in my case. How is it that editors in good standing can be treated so poorly? I demand an apology. Thank you for your consideration. Mumun 無文 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your talk page history is a mess of ... I dunno ... reversions and blanking, etc. A number of admins tried to deal with your unblock requests but it looks a lot like you were uncooperative. You were caught in a rangeblock & there's nothing anyone can do until you produce the autoblock ID. User:Yamla commented that your page was being protected for "unblock abuse" which, indeed, it was. To be honest, your best approach would have been to contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org with as much data as you can. I don't see Yamla as having been abusive here - Alison ☺ 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is the edit I removed as a personal attack. Given the editor's obviously heated emotional state, I did not issue a warning. As to protecting the user's talk page, please see the history. Fifty edits in the space of less than an hour with Mumun man refusing to provide the information we were requesting but instead making edits like this and this, etc. etc. I believe that in such circumstances, temporarily protecting the user talk page is appropriate. In this case, the page was protected for 24 hours (and then lifted shortly thereafter). After being unblocked, the editor then went and left this and this. As requested, I did not comment further on the user's talk page. This was also discussed very briefly on unblock-en-l, though the situation was quite confused there. --Yamla 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like Mumun man was very confused by what was happening, but didn't take the time to understand the issue. Instead, he began rapidly editing the talk page which rightly ended in protection. A bit more patience and care might go a long way next time. Leebo T/C 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. There is nothing objectionable about Yamla's actions. Sandstein 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like Mumun man was very confused by what was happening, but didn't take the time to understand the issue. Instead, he began rapidly editing the talk page which rightly ended in protection. A bit more patience and care might go a long way next time. Leebo T/C 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the non-support, all. Another honest wikipedia editor who attempted to do good is retired. Thanks. Mumun 無文 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, no one ever blocked you and you weren't accused of doing wrong until you started rapidly making accusations yourself. Are you still confused about what an autoblock is? Leebo T/C 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Step back and analyse the situation for a second here. You were rangeblocked (it happens to us all) and that's no reflection upon yourself nor does it appear in your block logs. You overreacted in a big way and repeatedly didn't produce the autoblock ID which would have been your key to getting out of that mess. When the autoblock was lifted/expired, you went gunning for both Clown and Yamla on their talk pages and on here. So what started with an autoblock needlessly escalated into something else altogether - Alison ☺ 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen the autoblock screen, but I've seen a few people lose it after an autoblock because they think they were blocked directly. Maybe we need to add "Do not take this personally!" in really big letter. And maybe make them red and flashing. Natalie 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext will give you an idea as to what shows up. - Alison ☺ 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen the autoblock screen, but I've seen a few people lose it after an autoblock because they think they were blocked directly. Maybe we need to add "Do not take this personally!" in really big letter. And maybe make them red and flashing. Natalie 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
看起来,Yamla讨厌中国人。几天前,我的朋友(也是中国人)创建一个帐号,然后发现他不能编辑,因为他使用TOR。他使用
Administrators' noticeboard (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: not provided.
Block message:
Do not call this template manually. Please follow these instructions instead.
WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
instead.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Administrators' noticeboard}}
on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:
{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=not provided | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=127.0.0.1 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here
with any specific rationale. If the decline=
parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.
{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>original block message</nowiki> | 3=not provided | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}
,但Yamla坚持不要让他(和其他中国人)编辑。没想到,他也欺负来自中国的用户。 谷歌翻译 (http://google.com/translate_t?langpair=zh%7Cen): It seems that Yamla hate Chinese. A few days ago, my friend (also Chinese) to create an account and then found he could not edit, because he is using TOR. He used ((unblock-auto)), but Yamla insisted he should not be allowed (and other Chinese) editor. Unexpectedly, he also bullied from the Chinese users. --Zheng Youxiu 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- If I may, the very latest part of this is a technical issue. As far as I can tell Zheng Youxiu is complaining that various users from China are blocked from editing Wikipedia. They are using the Tor as a way of getting around Chinese censors. However, Wikipedia blocks Tor because of a concern over anonymous proxy servers and Yamla is somehow involved in denying an unblock request. Zheng Youxiu has asked whether Yamla or Wikipedia more generally does not want input from Chinese people. Some users from mainland China are understandably frustrated because Wikipedia is preventing them from using an obvious means to bypass the censors. Howver, Tor network itself may not be immune from censorship or infiltration by authorities. This is a high-level concern that Jimbo Wales is personally concerned about. If we can assume good faith despite what looks on the surface like an unfounded allegation of racism, it is quite possible that Zheng Youxiu is sincere in his question, not simply bitter or raising trouble. If so, perhaps someone who can write well in Chinese should discuss the matter with him/her line rather than here. Please forgive if I misunderstand, just trying to help. I don't understand at all how this relates to the original issue in this section. My command of Chinese and my understanding of proxy servers are both zero. Wikidemo 08:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
郑优秀,我有同样的经验。我使用TOR,要求管理员让我编辑,但Yamla拒绝我的要求。我们该怎么做? Babelfish: Zheng is outstanding, I have the similar experience. I use TOR, requests the manager to let me edit, but Yamla rejects my request. How should we do? --宋飞启 14:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
真的?像Yamla这种人,真是连猪狗都不如!
Is AN3 broken?
I'm alarmed that certain users are given a free pass on WP:AN3. There is a growing number of pretty obvious infractions that are marked as "not handled". If it is a backlog, the page should clearly say so. If there is some other reason not to implement this policy, it should be identified as well. I don't think that "does it really matter?" is an expected response to a AN3 request. It is unsettling to witness how, for a day or two, some requests are skipped by a bunch of guys who perform the blocks and then declared "historical", with no explanation at all.[3] Since the application of WP:3RR has become so awfully selective, we should either rethink the policy or just throw it out the window. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that many people report someone to 3RR they are edit warring with. The more experienced edit warriors know how to game 3RR, only reverting precisely 3 times in any 24 hour period, then getting their friends to revert for them (whilst getting their "enemies" blocked for 3RR or baiting them into incivility and complain about it here, pleading absolute unblemished innocence). We need some kind of bot that flags up (say) 10 revisions in a 7 day period, showing longer term edit warring. As far as the actual operation of WP:AN3 goes, though, it seems up to date at the moment, I just did the last few reports. Neil ム 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it that people reporting their "enemies" should be a problem? Editors are entitled to work within the rules. That's generally how our society works too. And surely it's one of the most effective ways of ensuring the rule is complied with? If I'm involved in an "edit war" on some obscure page, am I supposed to sit and hope an interested third party comes along and exclaims, "hey, I've just found more than 3 reverts in one day. Shame on them. I'll go and spend half an hour reporting it". If you have 3RR, enforce it. If someone performs more than 3 reverts in one day, and that is shown, they should get blocked or warned. If there's a concern about longer term edit warriors, have a new rule about that. But there are going to be edit conflicts on wikipedia; 3RR is about reducing their impact on mainspace. Arbitrary application of the rule promotes well ... arbitrariness and unfairness. Why is admin lottery better than solid rules when it comes to a concrete and comprehensible policy such as 3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I always look at the history of the article in question. Quite often you find that the reporter is as guilty of breaching 3RR as the reportee. Then I block them both ... HAH! (kidding, usually I'd ask them both to stopitnow as they'd both get blocked if they continue). Neil ム 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you look carefully at WP:3RR it does allow an admin to revert before the letter of the rules is broken, as 3RR is not an allowance but the upper end of the limit. That is also why we have admins, experienced editors who understand the spirit as well as the letter of the rules and guidelines. As for arbitrariness, if more editors were to realise they could be blocked before the 4th edit (depending on the whim on an admim) there might be far less gaming of the system. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- This philosophy is wishy-washy and misguided. Systems will always, always, always be gamed. This is just reality. You either have the rule or you don't. What the thing you're talking about promotes is fear of arbitrariness among good users making sensible reverts against POV pushers. I mean, how is the ordinary user supposed to know where the line is drawn? Premonition and psychic powers would be needed! Admins are just editors (some of them aren't even that) who got through admin votes for whatever combination of reasons, and their powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- (ecx2) The trouble with AN3 is that too many reports are motivated by a desire to get even rather then to prevent disruption. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and I personally see no point blocking someone for a violation 24 hours after the revert war if the disruption has finished. By that stage the block becomes a punishment rather then a preventative measure. Likewise, one of the cases Ghirla reports above was an editor who was trying to disengage from a dispute. Blocking them for that would have simply been lame and the reporting editor later admitted on my talk page that they were simply looking to even up the score because they felt that editor was harrassing them. Unfortunately they couldn't document the complaint properly for investigation at AN/I and there we were. Personally, I think that 3RR reports are often indicators of much more serious underlying problems. Both the decisions complained about above were mine. It would have been nice to have been told about this thread or even have the decisions discussed with me one to one before this thread was opened. I'm still relatively new as an admin and very happy to take advice. Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to Deacon of Pndapetzim - the rules on reverting are really quite simple, and are expounded on WP:BRD. You should revert just the once, and then discuss the matter. WP:3RR was devised to allow good faith reverts of vandalism without incurring the wrath of pernicious admins (the non editing kind, I assume); therefore any revert other than the first which isn't removing vandalism makes the editor liable for appropriate action. However, it has become custom to permit (or to demand) 3 reverts per 24hours where it is an edit war on a poor or incomplete understanding of 3RR. I often review reports made to AIV and will block editors who are involved in edit wars with violation of 3RR as an "other" reason. If they want to contest their block on the basis that they were not up to their allowance of three reverts/day then they are quite welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The line is drawn at edit warring period. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We don't have strict laws for all circumstances and we don't need them. This is just a heads-up, but whenever I end up investigating something like a 3RR report, both people end up getting blocked for edit warring, regardless of how close to meeting four reverts in 24 hours they were. So don't try to play close with the rules when I or others like me are around — you'll end up blocked all the same. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- This philosophy is wishy-washy and misguided. Systems will always, always, always be gamed. This is just reality. You either have the rule or you don't. What the thing you're talking about promotes is fear of arbitrariness among good users making sensible reverts against POV pushers. I mean, how is the ordinary user supposed to know where the line is drawn? Premonition and psychic powers would be needed! Admins are just editors (some of them aren't even that) who got through admin votes for whatever combination of reasons, and their powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is a good example of why powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. I mean, I am not in any "edit wars", and it sounds like you're trying to bully me. Per above. Systems will always be gamed. Trying to counter this with random fear and admin lottery is not sensible. If 3 reverts per day is too much, lower it. If persistent triple reverting a day is a problem, have another concrete rule. Self-righteous caprice is not the answer. That's not to say that discretion should not be used of course. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then it's all the more annoying to see people mindlessly reverting four or five times a day and then, after a report was carefully prepared and submitted, being pardoned with the summary "does it really matter". There should be some consistency in the implementation of the rules. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it. A lot of it has to do with Wikipedia being a volunteer administration. In an employee organization, the owners of the company can set up strict rules which the employees must follow or risk being fired. These pressures simply do not exist on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it.
- And do you like that system? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not optimal, but there isn't really any way to improve on it in an all-volunteer organization. --Cyde Weys 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you could have a solid and consistent 3RR policy for a start. That'd be a way to improve it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not optimal, but there isn't really any way to improve on it in an all-volunteer organization. --Cyde Weys 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- And do you like that system? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it.
The only time I was blocked citing WP:3RR (and that was my first block, mind you) was when I reverted vandalism by an abusive sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte who made no secret of sockpuppetry when he reported me on WP:AN3. I don't know whether reports by anonymous editors are taken seriously these days, but I was instantly blocked (although no revert was identical) because "3RR is a big red flag", etc., etc. Then there was a period when it was fashionable to block people for two or three reverts because "they should have known better". Now we have a period when people are not punished for four or five reverts because, after two days of procrastination, their behaviour is considered "historical". This is very confusing, you know. Looks like a big mess to me. Either we have a rule on three reverts, or we don't. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asking that we block people for something they did two days ago and stopped? You might want to read WP:BLOCK. If they stopped reverting, do you just want to see them punsihed for there actions? That is by far not what blocking is for. Blocking is to stop disruption. If they have stopped themselves then why are we going to throw a block on there too to stop them from doing good?Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't "ask" for anything. I have no habit of block shopping. I welcome comments on whether the rule is still valid and, if it is, why it is applied so arbitrarily. Where's User:William M. Connolley who used to administer the blocks more or less even-handedly and in due time, rather than picking up a request on a seemingly random basis? --Ghirla-трёп- 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense. Not trying to bite anybodys head off! It is my belief that there is alot of grey area in WP:3RR. It is up to the administrator handling the case to determing the best course of action. I am sure there are lots of factors taken into account i.e. previous block history for 3RR, experience of editor, willingness to discuss. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely. But then these reasons should be identified by the closing admin. The bare summary "no action" is not very informative. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wont argue with that. I think transparency is important. At least a simple note saying, "user warned, not blocked for this infraction" or something of the sort would be benificial in my opinion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely. But then these reasons should be identified by the closing admin. The bare summary "no action" is not very informative. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense. Not trying to bite anybodys head off! It is my belief that there is alot of grey area in WP:3RR. It is up to the administrator handling the case to determing the best course of action. I am sure there are lots of factors taken into account i.e. previous block history for 3RR, experience of editor, willingness to discuss. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a thought, isn't punishment is about "deterrence"? if so, deterrence surely reduces disruption? Of course, that's only if the disrupter cares about being blocked or whatever the punishment is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't "ask" for anything. I have no habit of block shopping. I welcome comments on whether the rule is still valid and, if it is, why it is applied so arbitrarily. Where's User:William M. Connolley who used to administer the blocks more or less even-handedly and in due time, rather than picking up a request on a seemingly random basis? --Ghirla-трёп- 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I basically agree with Cyde's approach, in that I block for disruption when it seems necessary, though rarely for fewer than four reverts. I more often protect the page if there are two people edit warring. But Ghirla has a point. Regardless of what we say the rules are, we only have the rules we enforce. Since 3rr is about the only one we do reliably enforce, we should probably keep on it. It's helpful to check AN3 once in a while, and to clear a few whenever you make a report yourself. It is tedious and uninteresting work, but it needs to be done. The people who do it deserve credit for their contribution to the project. Maybe the foundation could send William M. Connolley an engraved beer mug or something. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't generally think that giving "disruption" as the primary reason for a block is a good idea, unless the disruption is obvious and unquestionable, or unless there's already been a decision made at CSN or ANI. A strict application of the 3RR rule is better. Yes, some people will game the system, but as someone pointed out above, this is inevitable in any large community. One of the biggest problems, on Wikipedia and on other wiki sites, is the arbitrary use of power by admins. "Disruption" is quite a subjective term, and, IMO, it's better to have clear-cut rules so that editors know where they stand. Even a well-intentioned admin will make mistakes in issuing blocks; far better, IMO, to enforce the 3RR rule to the letter, in order to reduce the potential for admin mistakes. Yes, some people will game the system and get around it, but that's the price we have to pay; it's more important to ensure that all editors are protected against arbitrary sanctions. WaltonOne 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't generally think that giving "disruption" as the primary reason for a block is a good idea, unless the disruption is obvious and unquestionable, or unless there's already been a decision made at CSN or ANI. A strict application of the 3RR rule is better. Yes, some people will game the system, but as someone pointed out above, this is inevitable in any large community. One of the biggest problems, on Wikipedia and on other wiki sites, is the arbitrary use of power by admins. "Disruption" is quite a subjective term, and, IMO, it's better to have clear-cut rules so that editors know where they stand. Even a well-intentioned admin will make mistakes in issuing blocks; far better, IMO, to enforce the 3RR rule to the letter, in order to reduce the potential for admin mistakes. Yes, some people will game the system and get around it, but that's the price we have to pay; it's more important to ensure that all editors are protected against arbitrary sanctions. WaltonOne 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No one questions the validity of blocks for "revert warring" in general (that is below 3RR but still disruptive). But these are discretion blocks not quite the same league as 3RR blocks. "Discretion blocks" should be administered sensibly and, preferably, by responsible admins who write content and, thus, motivated by improvement of the WP as a source of information rather than a self-fulfilling motivation of being in a position to show who is the boss. God forbid this from becoming a "Cyde approach". Non-writing admins should not be anywhere near the block buttons.
Engagement in content writing gives some useful insights that allow to better distinguish the disruptive revert warring between two users who refuse to discuss (block) and repeated reverting (still under 3RR) of a disruptive troll (Bonaparte case in point), copyvio pusher or otherwise nutty editor.
However, reports for "revert warring in general" should go to ANI, not AN3. 3RR is a razor wire, almost an automatic block. Removing the case, like [[4] here], because no one bothered when it was urgent as it is "too late to block anyway" may even make sense when the report is indeed historic. But reports should not get historic in the first place, they should be handled, that's one. And two, seeing Spartaz being not "block happy" is heartening. But his not blocking because the maintenance system failed would have been fine if he would still have at least warned a disruptive user.
Frankly, I am sick of that fellow. Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) goes around articles pushing the fringe Ukrainian nationalist POV for a while and this is long since tiresome. While there are plenty of poorly formed 3RR reports, often to hide the fact that the 3RR is questionable in the first place (still people get blocked for those if the backlog is handled by inexperienced or block-happy admins), it was upsetting to see my time totally wasted. I spent at least half an hour to make a report that is presented without confusion (see original) and was kind of upset to see that my time was totally wasted. Since then, I watch the fellow still editing disruptively but under 3RR and I have to waste my time with his edits.
AN3 used to be the least back-logged task. Was it because too many admins love blocking and this is the place to go when one is in a mood to kick some butts or because it requires less skill and work than updating DYK I don't know. But if now even sterile revert warriors can get off and multiple FA writers get blocked under bogus pretenses (recent example) something needs to be changed. --Irpen 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I regard edit-warring as a symptom of a problem. It's rarely a disease in itself, though that can sometimes be the case. Sometimes I think a better approach, rather than blocking, is short protections, particularly on non-high-profile articles. It's often better to look at what's actually being written. On higher-profile articles, admittedly, protection becomes rather more evil. Example: I recently came across a nationalist POV-crankery-pushing troll and a good guy edit warring. They were both on 6RR, or something similar. Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable. Instead of blocking I locked up the article for 12 hours, and the troll got sent packing a couple of days later when he kept on reverting despite 6 different people reverting him. I'm not a huge fan of wholly mechanical 3RR blocks. Yes, edit-warring is a pain, but implementing 3RR in a completely robotic fashion will do nothing but antagonise people. Moreschi Talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable." That admins get lynched for blocking trolls is a problem in itself. Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, Tom. The inability to deal with trolls who know how to stay within the bounds of 3RR and around the bounds of CIVIL is frustrating as fuck. But what do you do with a bad-faith editor who doesn't break 3RR, doesn't use obvious personal attacks, but just sits around aggrivating editors who are trying to build an encyclopaedia? WilyD 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's something that may not be taught, but must be learned. Tom Harrison Talk 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, Tom. The inability to deal with trolls who know how to stay within the bounds of 3RR and around the bounds of CIVIL is frustrating as fuck. But what do you do with a bad-faith editor who doesn't break 3RR, doesn't use obvious personal attacks, but just sits around aggrivating editors who are trying to build an encyclopaedia? WilyD 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no automatic administration. If people could make automatic calls on blocks, we could have -bot overlords. The more we praise or seek automatic administrative decisions, the more we abdicate our responsibilities, abridge "community trust," and render ourselves both otiose and destructive. Therefore, investigation, judgment, and communication are de minimis for being an administrator acting in a conflict. The better the investigation, the better the administrative action (the more valid). It takes time. It takes concentration. People who have a lot of experience with writing will be better able, in general, to discern editorial issues, but it would be possible for someone to not be a top writer and yet have Solomonic discretion. It's just rare. The one thing that is absolutely moronic is the idea that something like a block can truly be "automatic." We're people, not automatonic. Geogre 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- A note. This was initially not about "automatic handling", also a bad thing. It was about non-handling and then archiving without even warning an editor. Agree with the rest. --Irpen 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well if that was the concern, that could have been handled by a note on my talk page pointing out my error. That's a good point but the first time its been made to me. If anyone wants to know about why 3RR gets backlogged look at my talk page - the amound of time and trouble that not being block happy caused was amazing yet both cases were symptomatio of other more serious underlaying problms that would not have been addressed by a mechanical block. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- A note. This was initially not about "automatic handling", also a bad thing. It was about non-handling and then archiving without even warning an editor. Agree with the rest. --Irpen 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: partially agree but treating the habitual revert warriors with block of increasing length does help address the problem, not of course being the only thing that needs done. Your not block-happiness is appreciated. Still, warning a disruptive editor would have been useful at that point. Finally, you should not see this thread as just a criticism of your action. The thread originator pointed out at the problem with AN3 in general, hoping that some non-block-happy and content-writing admins would go there helping you. The report on Hillock was crystal clear and he well-deserved a block. He is still around from time to time and, frankly, I am tired of dealing with his tendentious edits. Not that I can do much until he over-reverts again. --Irpen 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely debatable whether the 3 revert rule does more good than harm. I for one have no interest in enforcing such a rule, and I suspect many others see it the same way. Friday (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, even though it's not supposed to be an entitlement, many editors do think of it that way. It eliminates some of the fear of being blocked for edit warring, or even thinking of a bit of back and forth reverting as edit warring. WilyD 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No one is talking about entitlement. But 3RR should not be used to block editors who don't break it, that's all.
- 3RR violation is a blockable offense. You touch the razor wire, you are sent home for 24 hours. There are exeptions, though.
- Disruption is also a blockable offense. Being on occasion close to a 3RR limit may or may not be revert warring. And does not mean the editor considers this "entitlement". Being habitually close to 3RR on a set of articles, is revert warring. WE usually mean the latter when speaking of the editors who consider 3RR "entitlement".
Being able to tell the disruption from legitimate returning the articles to normalcy, once they are attacked by a troll is what's expected from admins, we call it discretion. Content writing helps admins to be better at it. --Irpen 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Although I understand the argument against robotic enforcement of 3RR, I think, as I said earlier, that it's very dangerous to simply block people for "disruption" or "being a troll". In the end, terms like "disruptive" and "troll" will always be subjective to some degree. An admin coming into a situation could easily get the wrong end of the stick, and block the user they identify as a "troll" without blocking those on the other side of the conflict. While I know it's frustrating when trolls figure out how to game the system, I think that the arbitrary or unfair exercise of power is a much bigger threat. Better to enforce 3RR strictly; when both sides of the conflict violate 3RR, give both of them a 3RR block, regardless of who you think is a "good guy" or a "troll". Even-handedness and transparency are always needed, and having strict rules protects users against arbitrary exercise of power. Even a great admin with good intentions can easily make a mistake, or misunderstand a situation, and drive contributors away. WaltonOne 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You will note that I did deal with the matter in question completely even-handedly by blocking no one :) Also, I am capable of looking at the content in question. I become very hesitant to block anyone when one side is citing reliable, peer-reviewed academic literature and the other side is citing some random blogpage off teh internetz. These are things we should be thinking about. Overmuch of the mentality of the arbitration committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the admin corps. We should use our brains. Our ultimate aim is to build an encyclopedia. Yes, revert-fighting is doubtless disruptive, but adding shitty content is even more disruptive. 3RR blocks should be made with clue, and, yes, that may involve looking at what is being written. Moreschi Talk 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sanity check
Not really experienced in the 3RR board. Could I get a quick review on my actions here and here? Thanks in advance, Navou banter 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fine. It's always better to discuss rather than block - if asking nicely works to stop the edit warring (and it can, sometimes, occasionally), then awesome. Even if 3RR has technically been broken in the first instance you give, a polite chat for a first offence is no great shakes. Neil ム 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lists of people TfD
To all admins:
I'm going to need some help here. There are a total of 490 templates that need housekeeping. Singularity 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- User:^demonBot2 is flagged for this. Edit all of those to be a blank page, and we can quickly run the bot and subst: all templates (essentially removing them). ^demon[omg plz] 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Done Actually they didn't need orphaning, ST47 and I just nuked them all. ^demon[omg plz] 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This Talk Page is well overdue for consideration. Please could the issues raised there be addressed. Otherwise everyone is wasting their time posting there. David Lauder 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
User:IPSOS, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and overturning consensus as one user
Established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [5]. However, without consensus or any comment on the talk page, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization (which bears no direct historical relation to the original Order)rather than in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century." I take that back. User:IPSOS has now changed this as well against previous consensus. He says on the talk page that consensus can change, but one user is not enough for consensus. He didn't even start a discussion on it before making such edits which I would consider disruptive. Can someone take a look at this behavior? Kephera975 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge Disscussion for I-35W Mississippi River bridge <- Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge
The discussion has been going on for 9 days and seems to have slow down. I think it is time to close it. The discussion is taking place here at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Since I am not a Administrator here I don't think I should close it and risk getting blocked. so I a administrator to close it for me and determain the outcome and make the merger or not. Sawblade05 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is no consensus, with slightly more opposed to a merger. (Current count: 13 keep two articles [with some qualifications], 12 merge.) In the absence of consensus, should the "default" position be to retain two articles? Kablammo 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Stuck with bad coding halfway through a SOCK
I'm sorry to bother you but I am halfway through filing a WP:SOCK and cannot finish the process because the title is messed up. I am at the point where I now need to label the puppet pages and the puppetmaster page with the templates. However, the title is fouled up somehow -- instead of reading "Jebbrady (2nd)" it's got brackets and whatnot, see here. Please, if anyone can fix it so it reads correctly, I can finish this process by giving the puppetmaster/puppets a good working link via the mandatory templates, which I've been struggling with for more than an hour. I'm sorry if I should have gone somewhere else instead of WP:AN. -- Lisasmall 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Better? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- AnonEMouse, there are no words for my gratitude; thank you so much. -- Lisasmall 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! is pretty good. LessHeard vanU 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- AnonEMouse, there are no words for my gratitude; thank you so much. -- Lisasmall 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm in-between a rock and a hard place.
There's a member named Vanilla2, who wants to change his/her signature. But he/she can't figure it out. So what User:Hornetman16 wants to do is send an e-mail and get his/her password and do it for him/her. Would this be OK? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hope it is.--Hornetman16 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Giving away your password is not a good thing to do. Also, instructions can be found at WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. Good luck, Navou banter 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- We know it's not a good idea or thing to do but is it against policy is what we want to know.--Hornetman16 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably just a bad idea. Something to consider is creating a sandbox for code/examples, and asking the user to copy and paste the code into their signature preferences. Do you know exactly what issues from WP:SIG#Customizing your signature the user is having a hard time with?-Andrew c [talk] 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The above user has uploaded numerous non-free images without rationales. I tagged several today, which resulted in a discussion on my talk page. At first, the user was deleting the 'no rationale' tags from the images, now the user has begun changing the dates on the tags to 70 years in the future so they don't come up in the deletion categories. I don't want to get into an edit war and would appreciate some help. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted the date changes. Possibly one image is appropriate under fair use for identification of the game, but the remainder most likely won't. Cheers Kevin 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Houston, we may have a problem. My "friendly reminder" on the user's talk page does not seem to have worked. User:Fidelfair has now proposed WP:FURG for deletion three times, accusing another editor of "vandalism" for removing the tag. See [6] and [7]. Also proposed Category:All images with no fair use rationale for deletion here. The user seems to be motivated by a genuine belief that tagging and/or speedy deletion is inappropriate for articles with no fair use rationales...a legitimate point we have been discussing. But I'm afraid they need to be warned or stopped before making a mess out of the guideline pages. Also urged to discuss and work with the system rather than break policy as a form of protest. I'm a non-admin so this goes beyond my expertise and authority. Please help before it gets any worse. Thanks, Wikidemo 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Plagiarizing from Wikipedia?
Hi. I wasn't sure where else to put this, but I know that the Times of India's wholesale plagiarism was reported here, but I don't know whatever became of that discussion. Anyway, I was reading this article from The Daily Telegraph (Australia) about a Chinese couple wanting to name their child "@." One thing I found peculiar is that they wrote, ". . . the symbol may have a different name (see below)," even though there was nothing below. So I went to check out what Wikipedia had to say about the at sign, and the intro looked particularly similar... ~ UBeR 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch, and one for the Signpost I would think. Have you tipped them off? -- But|seriously|folks 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- ...see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions for more information! :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
How to deal with anon with dynamic IP
Please examine the history of Roe v. Wade. Ever since the 12, and IP address from a Verizon account in Boston, Mass. has been adding the word "corrupt" to the lead. At least 7 different IP addresses have made the edit (all starting with 71.124.xxx.xx) I've only been an admin for a month an a half, so I'm still learning (and I probably won't stop learning either). Anyway, I've decided to semi-protect the page, at least for the next 48 hours as a measure to prevent those edits. I was wondering if this is what other admins would have done, and I'm also curious what can be done when it comes to dynamic IPs (say, if someone had reported a 3RR on this page). Thanks for the advice.-Andrew c [talk] 04:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be an automated account that is violating numerous WP:BOT policies. Q T C 09:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that does look odd. I've blocked for now and will inquire to its apparent owner. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can administrators please check WP:BRFA before blocking bots that are apparently unauthorized? When bots are in trial, they are not required to have a bot flag as implied by the blocking administrator's summary ("Bot running without bot privilege per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=152012199&oldid=152008617"). They are required only to limit their edit rate to two edits per minute and to do only what the operator said they would do. Granted, User:RonaldBot did not have a user page that was explicit enough regarding its function, and I'll talk to the operator about that. But please look into these things before interrupting trials.
- Thanks! — madman bum and angel 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! — madman bum and angel 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Help in moving page
Someone has moved La Ronde (1950 film) to Roundabout (movie). I'm not bothered whether "La Ronde" or "Roundabout" is used, but there are two films called "Roundabout". Roundabout (film) already redirects to Roundabout (disambiguation), and Roundabout (movie) should do the same to avoid confusion. However, I can't move the article back to Roundabout (1950 film) as that already exists (it's a redirect made during a previous move).
In short; I'd like
- The 1950 film to be moved to either La Ronde (1950 film) or Roundabout (1950 film), and
- Roundabout (movie) to be a redirect to Roundabout (disambiguation).
Fourohfour 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's messed up. The correct title is "La Ronde", as the Arthur Schnitzler and IMDB article will attest. While this is the English Wikipedia, this doesn't stretch to renaming books and movies like that (imagine if that happened to La Cage aux Folles. I'll see if I can fix it - Alison ☺ 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - fixed (I hope!) How does it look now? - Alison ☺ 12:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Crafting a response to attempted GFDL revocations
Recently, Wikipedia has been placed under extreme danger by the attempted revocation of a GFDL licensure grant by an admin, who then proceeded to delete all of his images. Needless to say, the license itself and the Foundation (read the general disclaimer) consider the GFDL non-revocable; if it were revocable, Wikipedia would not be able to keep working, as even a moderately active contributor who departed and wanted to take his ball home with him could cause the deletion of hundreds of articles that he had contributed to. Now imagine even 5% of departing users trying to take their ball home with them and you can see how the majority of the most edited articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted.
Consequently, I have codified up a policy on Revocation of GFDL which I believe sums up the response we should have to attempted revocations of the GFDL. Note that this already describes a common practice, that is, the banning of anyone who attempts revocation of the GFDL (similar to how we deal with legal threats). Please discuss this proposed policy on the relevant talk page. Do not discuss it here; this is merely a notice pointing you to the correct place. We should keep the discussion centralized.
Thank you, Cyde Weys 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note on prior history: we've had people do this stuff during the lifetime of Wikipedia, including I believe admins going around deleting stuff. Of course the only "policy" we need for this is the GFDL and the only tool we need is the block button.
- I've taken the liberty of moving the proposed policy to Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tony is right, if a person does not understand that GFDL is irrevocable, and is performing disruptive actions based on this lack of understanding(such as removing content), and ignores explanations, then blocking seems warranted. I agree that the license itself and our rules about disruption covers this, but an explanatory essay is a good idea. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please people, Only you can prevent forest fires. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed that we have admins who don't understand free content! How did that happen? Secretlondon 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Help about a page in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion
Currently, in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion, the page Talk:Lucario is listed (even after a purge); however, nowhere in this page does the SD tag appear, nor does the category. Despite a purge of the category, the page is still here. Anyone has any idea what is happening (or what I am missing) ? Schutz 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gone now. Problem solved, but I am still wondering what this was. Schutz 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just purged the talk page itself, because of Talk:Lucario/to_do -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, I should reply before fixing ^^)I don't know what triggered it (probably a template that was marked as {{db-empty}}), but there's a simple work around: just edit the page and save it again, that forces the page to be rebuilt and removes the incorrect category. -- lucasbfr talk 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Fox news block
I must make a comment about a recent Fox News IP block by User:Adam Cuerden. It was universally agreed that a block of this IP was not at all appropriate here; however, Adam Cuerden went ahead and blocked it anyway here. As this is certainly an office issue, someone pointed out to Adam that he should do something. However, Adam has not been willing to respond to my comments on his talk page that the community thought a block was inappropriate; nor, for all I can tell, did he make a mention to the Communiations Committee. I ask for someone to address this, as the block was clearly overzealous, and Adam has not discussed the issue. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a bad block to place without notifying the Communications Committee. Major government organizations and corporations need to be reported for abuse so the Foundation can take care of any implications that may arrive. — Moe ε 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, FoxNews has its own Abuse address, I'm sure. If we're talking about a very brief block, it's probably pre-emptive, but a long block of a range of IP's? No. Has anyone lifted the block? Evil Spartan, have you notified the blocking admin that this discussion is taking place? It looks questionable to block a whole IP range, but he should present his reasoning in terms of policy violations. (I cannot imagine any good coming from FoxNews, except a test pattern, but that doesn't matter.) Geogre 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have unblock the IP, no vandalism or POV-pushing for quite a while Alex Bakharev 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had two people, one telling me to remove it, the other asking me not to. I decided to let them fight it out. Adam Cuerden talk 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You "decided to let them fight it out"? Seriously? Did it occur to you to thoughtfully consider their rationales and seek additional input from the community (which you should have sought in the first place) instead of washing your hands of the matter by simply ignoring it? —David Levy 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sherzo
I request that action be taken to look into edits made by User:Sherzo on the List of United States Presidents by military service page. He has, for at least the ninth time, edited it to a NPOV. He has been asked to stop. This time he changed George Bush's service to AWOL with the reference being a highly controversial and onsided movie produced by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11. He continues to vandalize this page after being warned over and over. This is still a highly controversial topic with it's own page on wikipedia. When you warn him he makes taunts back to the person who warned them. Thanks. User:Bluecord August 18, 2007
- Good faith edits aren't vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with it. I suggest instead of 'warning' him about his actions, that you talk with him to see why he prefers this revision. Thank you! — Moe ε 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the admin's noticeboard really isn't the right place to bring these kind of problems, because we have no power to arbitrate content disputes. Natalie 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
These are not good faith edits. This is a politically slanted edit that he has been talk to about several times. No one is in concensous about this edit and he is a blantant jack ass to anyone who tries to talk to him about it. What we are asking for is at least a warning block.User:Bluecord
- Don't make personal attacks, or you're the one going to end up blocked. — Moe ε 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made any personal attacks. You can clearly see where he has though if you do any research. There have been many complaints made against this user besides myself due to his actions. However, no one wants to take action which makes it seem that you guys want wikipedia to be utilized for blantant political statements. I take great offense to your warning. I have never personally attacked anyone on here. All I want to do, being a veteran and history teacher, is to make sure that things are correct and not politically biased. This is the problem we are having.User:Bluecord
- How isn't "he is a blantant jack ass" a personal attack? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Er..."Blantant" - and you're a teacher? LessHeard vanU 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
More crap like this [8] trying to get editors blocked will result in you being blocked Bluecord. — Moe ε 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Moe, what the heck are you talking about?User:Bluecord
- New editor: User:Sherzoe
- Says he's Sherzo, which outside of this thread I have never had any contact with anyone named Sherzo or Sherzoe.
- Sherzoe threatens to "sue my fucking ass".
- As I said Sherzoe and I have never talked before, so threats of legal action from him are slim to none.
- I just warned you of personal attacks you don't admit.
- Need I go on? I can see straight through obvious sockpuppetry, I'm not stupid. — Moe ε 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Moe, I didn't have anything to do with that. I don't even know where that edit happened or who that is. I think you need to do a little more research before you make accusations against me. I am trying to be civil in this manner and would never ever do something like that to another user.Bluecord
Moe, THAT IS NOT ME. It maybe someone else who has had an issue with him, but not me.Bluecord
This is an unwaranted accusation. The user Sherzoe did not originate from my IP address. Please ignore any accusations that are made linking me with this user. Thank you.BluecordBluecord 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behaviour, and directed to refrain from importing outside disputes into the English Wikipedia, disclosing real names or other identifying personal information on-wiki, and from making personal attacks and uncivil remarks. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Railpage article
Please note that I have raised a COI issue about the following user on the COI noticeboard. User:Doctorjbeam. There are other issues too, including the silly listings for deletion which no person who seriously wanted the page modified or deleted would do, and the second nomination for deletion which is not what it seems. I suspect a Railpage version of the Lernaean Hydra. Can an administrator look into this, I can PM my other concerns.Tezza1 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this article full-protected with constant unpleasant discussion on the Talk page? From a perusal of the various AfDs, Railpage Australia seems to be above the notability cutoff, and it is not terribly written. (I would shorten it about 20% if given a free hand). The article has existed for 15 months and attracted plenty of editors. Any remaining activity by editors with a conflict of interest (company employees and not just rail forum members) hardly looms large. User:Doctorjbeam, who may be an employee of a company connected to the site, has edited Railpage Australia a total of five times, and I didn't see him voting in any of the AFDs. (He added some rather boring information about the site servers). Thus the COI angle seems way overstated. I'd still advise Doctorjbeam to volunteer his affiliation on his user page, now that he's outed himself with an image upload. EdJohnston 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What is acceptable article tagging behaviour?
I'd like some opinions on whether it is acceptable to engage in mass-tagging of articles within a particular topic area, as opposed to raising general issues and concerns at a WikiProject talk page (if one exists)? I am referring to a series of edits by User:Guest9999. See Special:Contributions/Guest9999 for details, and in particular this series of 302 edits on 18 August. During that series of edits, Guest9999 placed many tags on Middle-earth related articles: 45 PROD tags were followed by nominating 24 articles for deletion at 2 umbrella AfDs, followed by placing 193 notability tags. The tagging seems fairly indiscriminate, as minor places were tagged along with major locations such as Rivendell, Rohan and Lothlorien. I have raised this at the user's talk page (several discussions there are also relevant, from here onwards), and pointed out that there is a WikiProject trying to rectify the problems with Middle-earth-related articles. I would be the first to admit that these problems exist. I've asked the user if they will consider raising their concerns at the WikiProject talk page, instead of putting notability tags on hundreds of separate articles, behaviour that I think borders on being disruptive. The user has replied to me, but the issue still remains as to whether this behaviour is disruptive or not, and I'd welcome second opinions. User:IronGargoyle has since reverted most of the tagging. Guest9999 has explained his tagging here and here. It looks like this particular case is being resolved amicably (and is possibly due to inexperience as regards the best way to flag up such issues), but advice on the general case of how to deal with mass tagging that disrupts the efforts of a WikiProject to carry out long-term merging and sourcing on a group of articles, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- My own view is that the mass tagger believes he or she is doing the good thing, and such a tagger is probably not a newbie, but an intermedie, as it were. True newbies put two tags up and see what happens. Oldsters know about the sore spots and don't tag unless they want a fight. It's the sophomoric that are problematic. Until notified of the inappropriateness of what they're doing, they're trying to help. If they keep going after that, then we're looking at disruption.
- The problem is the volume. 302 edits before being notified? Wow. Anyone who gets in 300+ edits in very short order probably (it's just probability) trying to say something, is probably highly motivated, and that kind of messianic impulse could be problematic in another context.
- Short version: notify them. Until you notify them, AGF means believing they're trying to help. After notifying, weigh the intent -- is it to "fix Wikipedia" or "help Wikipedia?" The latter is wholly good. The former...maybe not so much. Geogre 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Obvious sockpuppet of User:Light current, see edit history even aside from name. Maybe I'm supposed to report this elsewhere, but I need to get to bed. Matchups 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Reapplication of IP block
- 66.90.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I'm bringing this to AN as it's not an incident per se - while it hasn't edited, there are plenty of reasons why the IP should be blocked for as long as possible:
- Self-confessed IP of banned user Sixty Six (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- IP appears to be static
- IP is near-certain to be the person responsible for the (frankly sickening) ED biography on me.
I should elaborate on the third point - Sheneequa (talk · contribs), an ED admin, had performed a checkuser on my behalf and told me that the ED biographer, "Die clown die", had edited from two ISPs - one being RoadRunner (which was used by sock/meatpuppet Geoffrey Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), the other being Grande Communications, a small Texan ISP that Sixty Six had edited from (WHOIS the IP if you don't believe me). The username "Die clown die" was most likely because of CSCWEM's block of the IP, so given the harassment of multiple admin and users in good standing, he should not edit Wikipedia under any circumstances. Will (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-free images in project space
The archives for Wikipedia:Today's featured article contain numerous non-free images in violation of WP:NFCC#9 - a couple of examples would be Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2006 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2006. The pages are fully protected, so only administrators can remove the noncompliant images. Looks like a big cleanup effort is required. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there are, I think, two issues here. First, to the extent that TFA archives are, one supposes, accurately to record, wherever possible, what a particular TFA looked like when it was transcluded on the main page, it might be useful for the community to confer on old TFA pages an NFCC exemption (the requisite fair use explanation may, of course, for those images that continue to appear in the articles they illustrated in TFA, is the same as that already properly given on the talk page of each image, and it is unlikely that the diminution in article length is sufficient to render inappropriate any fair use claim); indeed, I would suggest that a consensus to that effect likely already exists. Second, it is not clear, I think, that the community ultimately will not countenance TFA's being granted an NFCC exemption (see, e.g., this discussion), such that a removal of all of the TFA-archived non-free images might be undone in the not-too-distant future. It may be that amongst the TFA archives are non-free images the use of which would be disfavored even in mainspace, and those ought probably to be removed, but on the whole I guess I mean to suggest that this should be about 9000th on our things to do; inlining images is rather trivial and may in fact be counseled by NFCC, etc., but I think one might, in view of the relative insignificance of this potential NFCC violation, do well to wait for the community to determine whether an exemption might be conferred. Joe 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- The "what it looked like on the Main Page" argument holds no water, as it can still appear in the page's history, so there's no need to leave it active. I do agree, however, that there should be an exception, but I also have a much more liberal attitude towards Fair Use images anyway (generally because my primary articles I edit are all of fictional characters or concepts, where there's no possibility for Free Use imagery to be used). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This problem has been raised before. A few months ago (May this year), I discovered that many of the archives for TFA had redlinks for images that had been deleted. I then replaced many of those redlinks with free pictures. While doing this, I noticed that many non-free images still remained, and raised this point. It seems that nothing got done. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Tidying up archives from 2005, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Rest of archives checked (2004, 2006 and 2007), and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Replacing deleted images in the archives. There are two main points to consider: (1) Should the pages of the TFA archives that people browse show what the blurb and pic looked like on the day (remember that sometimes the pic changes during the actual day itself) - I think people should link to dated versions in the page history for historical purposes. (2) Should the pics in the archives be updated, removing non-free pics, adding free pics where available, and replacing poor quality free pics with better free pics? I think such updating should occur, because the content at the TFA archives is randomly re-used at Portal:Featured content. It is this ongoing re-use of old FA blurbs that leads me to agree with Videmus that a clean-up is needed, but I would urge Videmus and others to use {{editprotected}} to (a) request removal of the pics in question, and (b) suggest a free image that could replace it. See here for an example of around 20 edit requests I made. Carcharoth 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an example of ongoing updating of the TFA archives. An image was deleted on Commons, the Commons delinker removed the image link at the TFA archives, and someone replaced it with a free pic. Carcharoth 12:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I've been going through the archives from 2004 to 2006, and in most cases the pages are not fully protected. I am currently compiling lists of (a) TFA blurbs using non-free images; (b) TFA blurbs with red-link images; (c) TFA blurbs without pictures. This should only take a couple of hours. I will post the results at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. It looks like a big cleanup effort will not be required - I can probably do most of this myself. I'd appreciate it if others held off until I've finished, as otherwise we will just duplicate efforts. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). Carcharoth 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Restored Edits disappearing
A while back I deleted the history of User talk:XavierVE, as he's an indef banned user and the page is full of various personal attacks and links to attack sites and the like. Another user has requested I restore the talk page history as best I can (there is clearly some shit in there that needs to stay deleted), so I started to go through it revision by revision to restore whichever edits I could - but those edits I tried to restore just disappeared. They no longer appear in the article history or in the deleted edits history. Does anyone know what's going on? WilyD 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes it takes a little while for the cache to to catchup with a restore... give it 5 min or so and check again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Brian.gratwicke and his edits to Robert Mugabe and my Talk Page
There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying. DDStretch (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you went too far by giving a vandalism warning to an established editor for a good faith and legitimate edit (even though the edit was POV). Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid (although such a POV word should have references to support it, along with wording like "seen by opponents as illegitimate". Either way, this wasn't vandalism and you should have accused him of such.--Alabamaboy 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)