Colombiano21 (talk | contribs) |
→1RR proposed for all editors of Chiropractic: New subsection. |
||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
:::::::If there are similar sentiments about me, I will also gladly remove myself from the list of uninvolved admins. It is not worth the collective time of everyone involved if actions undertaken by myself in this need to be second-guessed and checked over, or will become the source of unnecessary drahmahz. There are other admins who could easily perform the same function. So, please let me know. Cheers. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::If there are similar sentiments about me, I will also gladly remove myself from the list of uninvolved admins. It is not worth the collective time of everyone involved if actions undertaken by myself in this need to be second-guessed and checked over, or will become the source of unnecessary drahmahz. There are other admins who could easily perform the same function. So, please let me know. Cheers. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Just to add in my two cents, I'm intending to take a light-touch method to sanctions on this article. It is on my watchlist now and I will probably at some point place a comment on the talk page invoking the need for reliable sources, adherence to the fringe guidelines, and an emphasis on discussion over edit warring. Hopefully that will be all that is required. If not, then other methods will need to be considered. Ideally the article should be editable to the most people, so I am thinking that per-editor restrictions will be the way I will lean. Probably starting with 1RR on warring editors and escalating to article-edit bans. My goal is that the mere fact sanctions may be applied will persuade tendentious editors from disrupting things. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::Just to add in my two cents, I'm intending to take a light-touch method to sanctions on this article. It is on my watchlist now and I will probably at some point place a comment on the talk page invoking the need for reliable sources, adherence to the fringe guidelines, and an emphasis on discussion over edit warring. Hopefully that will be all that is required. If not, then other methods will need to be considered. Ideally the article should be editable to the most people, so I am thinking that per-editor restrictions will be the way I will lean. Probably starting with 1RR on warring editors and escalating to article-edit bans. My goal is that the mere fact sanctions may be applied will persuade tendentious editors from disrupting things. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
=== 1RR proposed for all editors of Chiropractic === |
|||
An administrator has now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=242018552&oldid=242016853 proposed] a 1RR rule for every editor at [[Chiropractic]]. This proposal seemingly goes against several of the comments made above. For example, it disagrees with the comment "solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions", as the rule affects solid editors along with everyone else. Discusson of this proposal is currently at [[Talk:Chiropractic #Requesting page protection]]. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Good Article Nominees == |
== Good Article Nominees == |
Revision as of 05:07, 1 October 2008
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
|
Approval of FA Template Protection Bot
A discussion has been underway for some time at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval regarding a proposed adminbot - FA Template Protection Bot. Following the recent RfC on adminbots, an addition was made to the Bot policy which was felt to reflect the consensus of that discussion: Wikipedia:BOT#Bots with administrative rights. The crux of this addition is to allow the approval of adminbots without the need for the operator to run a separate RfA. Instead, both the technical merits of the task and community consensus for it will be determined at WP:RFBOT and final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion. As ever, as a bureaucrat asked to consider granting rights I need to consider community consensus. The RfC on these bots does suggest that there is no longer a general acceptance that RfA should be needed for such bots, however some form of community approval remains expected. Opposition to this addition to the Bot policy has so far come from existing operators of adminbots on their own accounts, who are unwilling to subject themselves to even this lesser approval process, rather than from those unhappy with rights being granted outside RfA. The change has been fairly well advertised.
This post is intended as a notification that I am minded to approve an adminbot based on the addition to WP:BOT that resulted from the RfC provided that I am satisfied:
- That sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred
- That the potential approval was brought to the attention of the community
- That there is a general consensus that the approval of the adminbot is beneficial
- That the bot operator accepts that, should a bureaucrat later determine that the consensus for the bot to run no longer exists, they may request that a steward removes its admin rights
Should anyone be unhappy with adminbots being approved in this manner, please state so here or at the relevant discussion at WT:BOT. WJBscribe (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is workable. I think there's sufficient support for admin bots to be approved by BAG, with concurrence and +bot flag from a crat. And yes, the question of what to do with the pre-existing admin bots, especially those that aren't well-written is a stickier issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I do not have any objections to this bot receiving the +sysop without an RfA. I don;t know if me saying that matters or no.... J.delanoygabsadds 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I for one support this bot being approved per the consensus regarding the implementation of adminbots at the RFC. It has been running on trial for a month without any problems, the BRFA was advertised at numerous forums (WT:RFA, AN etc.), the task is very beneficial as the bot saves the hassle of not only an admin having to add the templates to the protection page but having to find each template in an article and prevents the possibility that a template is missed. Admittedly, there has been very little community response but the RFC itself makes up for that. This is a very uncontroversial task so I feel it would be better to give it the bit and see what happens; my bet is no one will even notice that this is now being done by a bot rather than by the operator's own account. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a query for #1: sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred. Could you elaborate on this? Does the code need to be open? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- And further to that, what do you have in mind re #2? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I anticipated that, as in other areas, bureaucrats may form different views on these matters and so didn't want to be too prescriptive. As to #1, I personally would not approve such a bot on the say so of a single BAG member. I would expect to see a number of users - BAG or others with experience as to coding - endorsing the scripts the bot will run off. I would not require the code to be in the open, provided that there remains a community consensus for the task to run in spite of any secrecy regarding the code. As to #2, I would expect sufficient publicity to ensure a fair spread of opinion - posts to the relevant noticeboards etc. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's my view on it:
- That can be arranged easily. It appears that the code is working well, and it has been looked over. If it's not enough, there's always Cobi over there.
- Is crossposting to WP:VPM, WP:BN, ad WP:AN enough?
- Aside from general concerns for "SkyNet" incidents, and concerns that are no longer valid, there is very little opposition.
- I believe that anyone filing for an adminbot already understands this, and if it was shown they didn't, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't rase opposition.
Xclamation point 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note on point 1, the code is on svn for anyone who wants to see it --Chris 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very Serious Concern. I'm not pleased to see the bot operator diminishing concern over
Nuclear HolocaustSkynet; Just one mistake and boom - it's "Come with me if you want to live" time, which I don't find appealing. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)- That statement confused me, what do you mean? Xclamation point 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The operator is User:Chris G, the dude dismissing the concerns on skynet is User:X!, please don't hold X!'s comments against Chris :) MBisanz talk 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all; I've already supported, below. I simply found the comparison between an admin-bot and An Artificial Intelligence that takes control of our Nuclear weapons and nearly annihilates humanity to be interesting, and tried to make light of it. Given that I apparently can't read, it ended up as a moderate fail - but meh, it's Monday. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very Serious Concern. I'm not pleased to see the bot operator diminishing concern over
- Make it so. HiDrNick! 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No Objection. I had one concern on point, and have inquired with Chris, but it's not a bot issue per se. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let's do this thing! MBisanz talk 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
WJBScribe, could you hold on to closing this? I have some fresh concerns that I need allayed about adminbots. As I am heading off to sleep right now, I'll post them in about 18 hours from now, when I log on next. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, lets prove that the admin bot approval system works, so that all the unauthorized ones can be approved... or blocked. Prodego talk 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Nichalp: Of course, I had intended to wait several days to ensure that there was a consensus that approving admin bots in this manner was appropriate. WJBscribe (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me — It's high time for separate processes for handling the granting of human adminship and bot adminship, which have completely different area of concern for each. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Risk analysis
I'm not against adminbots, but there are a few things that I thought of that needs closer scrutiny.
Now, as we know, with admin privileges, a user account can skim a block, edit protected pages, block users. With a bot flag, edits by a user account do not show up on recent changes. Now integrate both. You now have a super account that can do all the above without human intelligence. Now if you have a bot that malfunctions, its going to be difficult to do something about it. We can't block an adminbot, as it's just going to skim over the block. With a bot, or automated script to be precise, the bot can operate much faster than a human. A human can edit at most say, ten pages a minute, but a bot can well do over sixty. Now as we know with coding, nothing can be assumed to be bug-free. So, assuming a bot goes beserk or rogue, edits at a higher rate, or makes junk edits; what mechanisms are there in place to pull the plug on the bot immediately? Remember, we cannot effectively block an admin bot. Also, as the edits do not appear on the recent changes list, its going to be quite sometime before someone notices a beserk bot. The only way I see it be stopped is by removing the +sysop flag, and then blocking it. For that to happen, one needs to flag the attention of a steward, for which there will be a lag. In the meantime the bot may have marred some 2,000 pages. Another scenario: We have had rogue admins in the past. Similarly, what operator trust levels are needed before we approve an adminbot? A skillful programmer, but "non-admin material", may write a very useful bot. Once that is approved, all s/he needs to do is to change to code to do something malicious. I think the trust of an operator should also play a key role in approving adminbots. As I said above, I'm not against adminbots, but a thorough risk-analysis needs to be carried out to mitigate the occurrence of unimaginable scenarios. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- In theory this is an issue. But the FA protection bot is not editing thousands of pages, it is simply protecting a few pages each day. More generally, it's hard to see why a bot that needs to edit thousands of pages would be an adminbot in the first place - the admin features could be separated from the editing features, and run under a different username. I would favor that system in general, where the adminbot part performs relatively few non-privileged actions, and relies on a non-adminbot helper for any large-scale editing.
- A mitigating factor is that anything that an adminbot can do, another bot can undo in about the same amount of time. There's no permanent damage an adminbot can do that a malicious admin couldn't already do, and we are comfortable with the risk analysis for malicious admins. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. All administrative actions can be undone except page history merges. I don't have any concerns for FA bot, it's scope is limited and well defined, code is open, and the operator has provided an "off" switch. So things seem good. To answer the revert part: a bot can undo the damage, but then will we have the service of an undobot to do such a thing when it happens? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't know much about bots and their running but, as a general comment, it seems to me that the broader proposal would result in bots with greater power being scrutinized less. Not, in general, a good way to go about things. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's being scrutinized less? From what I see, this is about 3 times the scrutinization that a regular bot gets. Xclamation point 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I misunderstood this. Does final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion mean that the bot does not go to BAG, or does it mean that it does but a bureaucrat has to approve it? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Idealy the bot will have three approvals:
- I guess I misunderstood this. Does final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion mean that the bot does not go to BAG, or does it mean that it does but a bureaucrat has to approve it? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The bag member who approved it for trial
- The bag member who approved it after the trial
- The crat who gave it +sysop and +bot flags --Chris g (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks. Objection withdrawn. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- My main concern is that, like other 'bots, adminbots should run on separate 'bot accounts. That makes them easier to audit, stop, or undo when necessary. So the approval of a new adminbot should include the creation of a 'bot account, with administrator privileges. Over the next few months, existing adminbots should be migrated to their own 'bot accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with that? IMO migrating the admin bot's to sepeate accounts is a good thing --Chris 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think requiring an admin bot to run under a separate account is a good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I was under the impression that that was one of the things every one could agree on --Chris 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Get my damn bot's actions out of my contribs already, it makes it exceedingly difficult to find human actions in my Special:Log. --Cyde Weys 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked admin accounts cannot edit pages. This fairly important point seems to have been overlooked. The only way a blocked admin account can continue editing would be if it were to unblock itself first, which would require very special programming, and certainly could never happen accidentally. Happy‑melon 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- "We can't block an adminbot, as it's just going to skim over the block" - no, it can't just skim over a block. We can block an admin bot just like we can block an admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
+Sysbot?
Forgive my limited comprehension of these issues, but picking up one response to Nichalp's thoughtful doomsday scenario was that this particular bot is limited in scope to FA page protection, so can't do much harm anyway. Separating +sysop powers and granting them piecemeal is a PEREN at WT:RFA, but perhaps there's a strong rationale to ask the developers to create a +sysop flag for Bots (+sysbot?) that is stripped of the elements that we would never seek to permit for a Bot. For me that lsit would be delete, recreate, block and unblock; we can debate those specifics, but I'd be more comfortable with agreeing with this proposal on that sort of basis. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, all of those capabilities are used by currently operating admin bots. Cydebot, for instance, has been performing deletes of old category pages uncontroversially for over a year, and is currently going through the BFRA process. We have bots that automatically block socks of people engaged in very specific types of move vandalism (for instance, Grawp and Willy on Wheels). So I don't think these restrictions make much sense. What people need to realize is that a bot is not capable of doing things it wasn't programmed to. Cydebot is only programmed to delete category pages; it cannot do anything else. All of these doomsday scenarios are predicated on one of two factors:
- The advent of strong AI, which would truly permit bots to run amuck. Needless to say, this is still decades away (if that), and not a concern at the moment.
- A person going insane using the admin bot account.
- Number 2 is actually a bit more of a reasonable concern, but I'm not concerned that the risks are any greater than a normal admin going crazy. I don't want to have a WP:BEANS moment, so I won't go into any specifics, but there are lots of ways to do all sorts of damage without needing an admin bot account. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the biggest thing the devs could do to make people less scared would be make a sysop flag that can't unblock itself. The primary, root, fear I see is a bot account unblocking itself and continuing to do whatever bad thing it was doing. Creating a flag that cannot unblock itself would solve a lot of fears. MBisanz talk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now that's an excellent idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Now this is an amusing idea that I don't have any objections to. I'll admit that I've always wondered why administrators can unblock themselves at all. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cyde, I think it was from the days of 40 admins on the entire site and only Jimbo with a server password, so a single admin account being compromised would mean lots of havoc. Today with Stewards on around the clock, the response time is generally under 5 mins, so yea, I don't know why we still have that feature. MBisanz talk 00:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the biggest thing the devs could do to make people less scared would be make a sysop flag that can't unblock itself. The primary, root, fear I see is a bot account unblocking itself and continuing to do whatever bad thing it was doing. Creating a flag that cannot unblock itself would solve a lot of fears. MBisanz talk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Stop looking for problems where none exist. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I too think this is a solution looking for a problem. Think about it. Setting aside whether admins in general should be able to unblock themselves, the only way a blocked adminbot could unblock itself is if it was programmed to. Since no operator would want their malfunctioning bot to continue causing problems, they won't program it to unblock itself. Thus, there is no problem. (Unless the operator goes rogue, in which case restricting the adminbot from unblocking itself achieves nothing because the rogue op can just unblock the bot from his or her main account) – Steel 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a solution to the perception that bots can go rogue. If adminbots can't unblock themselves, the skynet-phobics will have one fewer reason to fear them. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- In which case it is just introducing a false sense of security. And to all you "skynet-phobics" it is not going to happen (at least not with my bot :P). One of the first things you should learn about computers is that they're so stupid you have to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it. Which means the only way the bot could stuff up completely is if I go rouge, which if I was going to go rouge I would have done already. --Chris 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a solution to the perception that bots can go rogue. If adminbots can't unblock themselves, the skynet-phobics will have one fewer reason to fear them. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) ... or we could just ignore those irrational arguments / users and instead encourage developers to focus on actual problems. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've been watching a fair amount of disruption at this article for several weeks now, and believe it could be helped by the general sanctions laid out by the Arbitration Committee, specifically the discretionary sanctions which would allow uninvolved admins to take measures to reduce disruption to the project. The scope of the Pseudoscience case, "interpreted broadly", is said to include but not be limited to all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Although Chiropractic is not specifically categorized (by us) as a pseudoscience topic, it seems fairly obvious that Chiropractic does contain some ideas that are at least "pseudoscientific". For example, see this article,[1] titled "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". In fact, I'd say that the "pseudoscience" aspect of the topic, is one of the key sources of the problems leading to the disruption. So, I'm thinking that the authority from the case's discretionary sanctions would be an appropriate way to address the dispute. Anyone have strong objections? --Elonka 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chiropractic is pretty mainstream anymore; I'd be pretty hesitant to call it "fringe" given its level of acceptance by pretty conservative groups, like insurance companies and government health programs. There are pseudoscientific elements within mainstream medicine as well. The editing issues in this article are reminiscent of those seen on psychiatric articles. While there is something to be said for helping this article get into shape, I think it's stretching things a fair bit to say this should be considered pseudoscience. Risker (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Risker, I think you are confusing generic "mainstream" with "scientific mainstream", which is what is generally meant in this type of discussion. Insurance coverage and legal registration are notable for being influenced by political and economic pressures unrelated to the scientific legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject. Even the most pseudoscientific of all alternative medicine subjects - homeopathy - is protected by special legal exceptions in the USA. If enough voters will sign a petition or write letters to their Congressman, or if an insurance company will earn money by it, anything can get "recognition". Chiropractic is at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. It has characteristics of both, or as some reform chiropractors jokingly put it: "Chiropractors are alternative, but are pretending to be doctors." (Said in the context of how scripts are used in practice building, some of which have been leaked to the outside world as the manipulative things they are. They are normally used only by actors, but are also used by many chiropractors, showing how both professions are pretending (acting) to be something they're not.)
- The profession is a blend of obvious CAM, and yet has some mainstream characteristics, so it's "at the crossroads." "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice." The last two paragraphs in this article deal with this, as summarized in the introduction: "The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care. The next decade should determine whether chiropractic maintains the trappings of an alternative health care profession or becomes fully integrated into all health care systems." The implication is obvious: if the "trappings of an alternative health care profession" are dropped, acceptance and integration may follow. Many notable chiropractors have pointed the profession in the direction of dropping belief in the fictive vertebral subluxation and overreliance on spinal adjustments, and seeking acceptance as a back care specialty, akin to dentistry and podiatry. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion - while chiropractic is a topic with some mainstream acceptance, in looking at what's going on on that page, it's being treated as another battleground for the pseudoscience wars between editors who are already under restrictions elsewhere. I think for the purposes of applying the discretionary sanctions it can be included, since it is being included in the same edit wars. This does not reflect any judgment on the classification of the subject matter but rather the classification of the nature of the dispute and its participants. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been involved in many of the disputes at Chiropractic, and have some comments.
- Whether chiropractic is "pretty mainstream" depends on what one means by the word "mainstream". Although there's a strong consensus among reliable sources that chiropractic is not "mainstream medicine", there's no agreement about what category it should be in. To quote Chiropractic #Scope of practice: "Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); however, a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine."
- Chiropractic is an unusual profession in that so many of its practitioners are clearly WP:FRINGE, and at the same time so many practitioners are just as clearly mainstream (for some definition of "mainstream"). For more on this subject, please see Murphy et al. 2008 (PMID 18759966), entitled "How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry".
- With the above in mind, I expect that it will take some expertise in the area to know whether a series of edits to Chiropractic is about the "mainstream" or the "fringe" parts of chiropractic, and that it will therefore be relatively difficult for uninvolved administrators to decide the best action for a dispute.
- I should mention that User:Elonka and I had a discussion in July about the contents of Chiropractic, with respect to a relatively-minor formatting issue; see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Speedy deletion of former red link. After discussion, we ended up doing things Elonka's way. During the discussion, successive comments by Elonka on Talk:Chiropractic accused me of WP:CIVIL[2], WP:POINT[3], and WP:OWN[4] violations. These accusations were not helpful to the discussion or to Chiropractic, and if this is the sort of oversight that's being proposed here, then we should not do it.
Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not chiropractic itself is "mainstream" may not affect whether the wikipedia disputes about its article have a lot in common with the pseudoscience disputes, and whether the user/s in the dispute are those seen engaging in other disputes on fringe and pseudoscience articles. So I would not look whether the topic is mainstream, but more whether the nature of dispute is similar to the pseudoscience disputes. If it contains a fringe/pseudoscience element or associations, then it is quite possible those same kinds of aspects and issues are at the heart of the dispute here too. On the last point, perhaps a lighter touch in some ways would lead to less contention, but that's a separate matter. Brief comment only on application of a sanction. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Largely per FT2, I notice a strong correlation between the dispute over chiropractic and that over homeopathy and other examples of alternative medicine. The same people are involved and the same arguments used, although chiropractic is probably closer to the mainstream medicine side. There is a pending legal action in Britain between the British Chiropractic Association and an author who disputed the benefits of their craft - see Simon Singh - so be careful. My view is that articles about chiropractic do fall within the ambit of the Pseodoscience case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. This lawsuit is one of many of a similar type, and is another type of behavior engaged in by supporters of pseudoscience (Scientology, Hulda Clark, Matthias Rath, etc.) Such attempts to silence criticism, which are normally part of scientific disputes and discussion, are pretty much unheard of in the mainstream scientific world. Such disputes and criticisms are normally dealt with through discussion, rebuttal, and the provision of documented evidence, not by suing the one who is criticizing. If any editor receives threats (legal or otherwise) because of their editing here on these subjects, Wikipedia authorities need to be contacted immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- And psychiatry: [5]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. This lawsuit is one of many of a similar type, and is another type of behavior engaged in by supporters of pseudoscience (Scientology, Hulda Clark, Matthias Rath, etc.) Such attempts to silence criticism, which are normally part of scientific disputes and discussion, are pretty much unheard of in the mainstream scientific world. Such disputes and criticisms are normally dealt with through discussion, rebuttal, and the provision of documented evidence, not by suing the one who is criticizing. If any editor receives threats (legal or otherwise) because of their editing here on these subjects, Wikipedia authorities need to be contacted immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect this belongs on WP:AE but I agree that while the content overlap is not 100%, the editor overlap is pretty high, especially if you consider those editors who are making a lot of noise. So it makes sense. In fact, I think that sanction is a sound and pragmatic approach to any long-running content dispute. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The presence of expert editors like Eubulides and Fyslee has helped keep the article balanced. Elonka's summary seems not to recognize this. Ludwigs2 has recently showed up on the talk page; Elonka champions him [6] very much like Jagz/161.243.114.45/Fat Cigar. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic is mainstream, the sources even say so. This one is a no brainer. AtticusLecter (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bye now. [7] Thatcher 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to add that I agree with Mathsci comments. There are regular editors there that work hard to have everyone follow the guidelines for editing that article to try to keep it balanced. Eubulides works especially hard to listen to all comments and writes what they all want to put into the article on the talk page to let everyone edit it there until they reach a consensus to put it into the main article. It's actually very impressive to watch this routine they have set up. I don't think that Elonka needs to step in at this time. My personal opinion on this is that she is not 'uninvolved' since she did have the situation with Eubulides which wasn't pretty plus she has already been involved with a few of the editors there with her restrictions at other articles and isn't really received that well. This is just my opinion that I felt I should share from being mostly a watcher of this article. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- We operate by consensus. Arbitrators and administrators are nothing special. Their opinions here count no more than those of regular editors. Several involved editors have expressed doubts about Elonka's perceived neutrality in this area. I agree that the article can be covered by the pseudoscience case, and encourage her to make a request for sanctions at WP:AE, but to leave enforcement to other administrators. It is best if the parties to a dispute view the referee as a neutral party. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a decision anyone can make, who wishes to act as an uninvolved admin. Looking at this thread, some brief observations:
- Elonka as I understand it, is not asking to sanction any editor. She is asking for guidance whether or not topic X may reasonably be construed to fall under Arbcom sanction/remedy Y. That is something anyone could ask, involved, uninvolved, anyone. There is no restriction on checking for views or suggesting it. In fact if a user were involved this would be where to bring the idea for consideration. Its a fair reasonable question.
- Elonka clearly feels that if allowable, the general sanctions would help the disputes on this page. If she has significant "history" (ie, roughly, bad blood) with any editor, of a non-admin nature (ie beyond that she has been an admin on issues related to them in the past) or would not be seen as neutral in warning, tools, or sanctions on them, then she has to weigh that up before making a decision related to that editor. And others may want to comment, or she may wish to ask another admin to review it instead of her. That's normal. but it's not salient for the question she's asking here.
- Elonka's main involvement as evidenced by QuackGuru's diffs, does seem to be of an administrative nature. This one is about civility, editors' roles and some content issues others need to attend to, and this one and this one about editor conduct. None of these three shows any significant involvement in the topic beyond that of an administrative nature.
- Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a decision anyone can make, who wishes to act as an uninvolved admin. Looking at this thread, some brief observations:
- Three arbs have commented on this routine WP:AN thread. You don't see that very often! In any case, please review this conversion, and then this one for full cluefulness
about why Elonka might not be the bestbefore choosing an administrator to manage sanctions at chiropractic. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)- Jehochman, are you ever going to let Elonka get on with it without critiquing her approach? How many times have you declared an intention to "avoid Elonka" and yet continued to spring up to comment on threads that involve her? You disapprove of her conduct, the whole wiki probably is aware of that by now - we don't need periodic reminders... WJBscribe (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please comment on the merits of what I said. Did you read the links?
It is not appropriate for you to attack me because of who I am.Please look at what I said and evaluate it objectively. You will see that I am pointing out an actual issue, citing evidence, and making my remarks in the correct forum, with perfect civility. I wish you would uphold those same standards. I have been active in both Homeopathy and Chiropractic. It is not necessary for me to run and hide when Elonka appears at a locus where I am already active. Jehochman Talk 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)- Of course you are not required to, bar your own undertakings (e.g. [8]). You could have stuck to just commenting on whether the article fell within the scope of the Arbitration remedy being decided, but apparently couldn't resist needling an administrator you have been a perennial critic of. I don't see an attack in what I posted and my reason for commenting is nothing to do with who you are but rather your attitude with regard to this particular admin. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you mentioned once yourself, Elonka and I both operate in the same areas of Wikipedia and will inevitably bump into each other quite often. I very much want to avoid strife for the good of Wikipedia. FT2's comment above seems not to be fully informed, which is why I posted the follow up, including links. There is history surrounding chiropractic that is not obvious. I agree with the approach being proposed, but suggest we recruit an administrator who does not have a history of disagreement with one, or two, of the main contributors to the article. Thanks for your input. I have edited my remark above to make it less personal. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are not required to, bar your own undertakings (e.g. [8]). You could have stuck to just commenting on whether the article fell within the scope of the Arbitration remedy being decided, but apparently couldn't resist needling an administrator you have been a perennial critic of. I don't see an attack in what I posted and my reason for commenting is nothing to do with who you are but rather your attitude with regard to this particular admin. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please comment on the merits of what I said. Did you read the links?
- Jehochman, are you ever going to let Elonka get on with it without critiquing her approach? How many times have you declared an intention to "avoid Elonka" and yet continued to spring up to comment on threads that involve her? You disapprove of her conduct, the whole wiki probably is aware of that by now - we don't need periodic reminders... WJBscribe (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Three arbs have commented on this routine WP:AN thread. You don't see that very often! In any case, please review this conversion, and then this one for full cluefulness
Striking while the iron is hot- not having read every bit of this thread: I think there are only three editors at that article who are likely to get sanctioned. I won't name them, but I think that since the main source of disruption is so limited, but quite pervasive, it would be a good idea to apply the sanctions. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the number is so small, why don't you present evidence at WP:AE and then those particular editors can be warned or sanctioned individually. That way other editors need not be inconvenienced. We should aim to use the minimum force necessary to resolve a problem. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not suicidal, myself. It isn't an article where I have a lot of interest or involvement, and so I don't want to cause myself so much hassle. Further, it isn't as good a solution, because the problem is so totally about only a few of the editors who edit war and argue per IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page, the sanctions won't have any effect on the other editors. This is a good way to make it not about particular editors: just apply it, and whoever falls into the net, those are the ones who should be caught. So, the sanction is the minimum force. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- The disruption at the Chiropractic article appears to be fairly complex. On the one hand, there does appear to be a lot of drive-by POV pushing, so some editors there have been doing good work in standing guard over the article and keeping it free of cruft. However, based on what I've seen of the history, I think that at times the article may be being guarded a bit overzealously. I have sometimes seen what appear to be reasonable edits from established contributors, added in good faith and with reliable sources, but the changes are still reverted within minutes. Edit summaries on the reverts range from things like "rvv" to "added without discussion" or "rv to consensus version". However, there does not appear to be an obvious consensus at the talkpage. Indeed, I could probably point out a few places where people in the discussion are saying that there's a consensus, but I think that other reasonable editors might disagree as to whether a true consensus existed or not. At times, some editors seem to be confusing the idea of "consensus" with "majority", which is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia:Consensus. So with strong opinions on either side, the article appears to be in the middle of a large game of tug of war, being yanked this way and that.
- Another conflict at the article has to do with the sequence of edits. Some editors seem to be of the camp of "Discuss controversial edits before they can go into the article," and others are more following WP:BRD, meaning they're going to make controversial edits until/unless someone reverts them. And of course it's always problematic when an editor uses one method for themselves, but insists on something different from everyone else ("I can add anything I want at any time, but you have to get permission first before you can post something ...")
- In order to try and get the article back to a state of healthy editing via discretionary sanctions, this could proceed in one of two ways:
- Sanctions focused on editors, meaning identify a few editors whose presence might be causing more disruption than it's resolving, and asking them to stay away from the article for a certain period of time to see if that helps stabilize things.
- Sanctions focused on the article, such as to put it under a revert limitation, or other editing conditions such as, "Do not delete citations without discussion".
- In order to try and get the article back to a state of healthy editing via discretionary sanctions, this could proceed in one of two ways:
- My own feeling (which others may disagree with), is that one of the first things that needs to be done is to get people away from using the Revert button as an editing tool. So a revert restriction might help to calm things down a bit. I tend to like a "0RR except for vandalism/unsourced" restriction, but others may disagree. In my experience though, once an article's atmosphere can be changed to a style of, "Don't delete other people's edits, change them", that it can help get past the kind of roadblocks that this article is experiencing.
- Has there been an extensive history of edit warring and protection? If so, I think we should allow a single revert (1RR) followed by discussion. We may need to ban A-B-C-D type revert wars where each editor does one revert. The problem with 0RR is that it puts good faith editors on par with tendentious editors. If something goes in, there needs to be an ability to take it out, and then follow up with discussion. That is the natural state of things. Ordinary dispute resolution and noticeboards can be used to help resolve disagreements, even when general sanctions are in effect.
- If there are limited number of editors who have been causing problems, can we identify them and apply warnings or restrictions? If so, I would very much support that idea. This article does fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Lastly, I recommend starting with the least intrusive sanctions, and then increasing the restrictions as needed until the problem resolves. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, some combination: something like 1RR, plus sanctions on disruptive editors. The problem with 0RR is that one can put in or delete anything, and no one can do anything about it. You could take out a whole section, and to put it back, an editor would have to re-write the whole section. Also, one can put in information which just should not be there- and no one can do much about it. So I don't think focusing on the article that way is a good idea: you are dealing with clever people here. However, a 1RR per day on the article coupled with editor banning for disruption or other violations might help a lot. (1RR helps because editors are much more conservative with their one revert, being as it's golden). The "Do not delete citations without discussion" might help. However, what you say about consensus- Is that true? My reading of it is that consensus = supermajority, between 75 and 90 percent, as I interpret it myself. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a disheartening example of admin or ArbCom actions taking article editing out of the hands of some of our finest editors (eg Eubulides) and really making a mess of things. Anytime we're deprecating an editor of the caliber of Eubulides, we're on the wrong track; that appears to be where Elonka's direction has taken the article. This is ranking right up there as one of Wiki's greatest gaffes. Placing editors of the caliber of Eubulides (who actually know what they're talking about, are civil and courteous, and can cite high quality reliable sources all day long) on par with tendentious POV-pushing SPAs, and then deprecating his knowledge to second-guessing by admins who don't know the topic, does not bode well for Wiki's future. It's most discouraging for the many civil and knowledgeable science editors to see this happening. I hope that if Wiki persists in staying this disastrous course, taking editing out of the hands of the most knowledgeable, that we will at least bring in neutral, unbiased and clueful admins who are known to work well with others. I can think of many who could do a fine job here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whoever said Eubulides? I doubt it would effect him. He and I disagree about the issue of what is and is not OR/SYNTH, but he is not going to get whacked with this. And I promise that any admin who goes into Chiro and does anything they do based on what they think in a content dispute, rather than what they think of user behavior, I will take every action against them that I can. Yes, I've heard things like this have been done on other articles. Admins have no business in content disputes when they are acting as admins. But I'll certainly do my best to see that doesn't happen here. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- On the basis of her past actions, Elonka would probably not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers. I would guess that she is probably a little out of her depth here: her analysis of editing behaviour was made independently of content issues, a bad sign. Her use of the word "overzealousness" is also disturbing. My fear is that her 0RR rule and push for micro-compromise will not result in a more scholarly encyclopedia article. It could create a borstal atmosphere on the talk page that could well alienate star contributors. It would seem more appropriate if one of the many administrators that have been more actively involved in discussions on WP:FTN could keep an eye on the page, e.g. Dougweller, MastCell, etc. Elonka's recent brush with pseudoscience was not particularly helpful, when she edited on behalf of a POV-pusher Zero g over a fairly minor matter. Elonka got caught up in her own pet conspiracy theories which she trumpeted on talk pages. A hands-off more informed touch is surely what is required when dealing with pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further, that three arbs have weighed in here in favor of
Elonka'smanagement of these articles, even after seeing diffs of her treatment of Eubulides, should give anyone reading a clue as to whether good, civil, conscientous, knowledgeable science editors are going to want to continue to engage these articles. How many editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers and Eubulides does ArbCom think we have; they don't grow on trees. This entire situation gives the appearance that we've turned article editing over to those who know the least about the topics, and we put knowledgeable editors on an equal stance with tendentious POV-pushing editors. If these articles need this sort of oversight, I can think of several knowledgeables admins who also have good interpersonal skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further, that three arbs have weighed in here in favor of
- On the basis of her past actions, Elonka would probably not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers. I would guess that she is probably a little out of her depth here: her analysis of editing behaviour was made independently of content issues, a bad sign. Her use of the word "overzealousness" is also disturbing. My fear is that her 0RR rule and push for micro-compromise will not result in a more scholarly encyclopedia article. It could create a borstal atmosphere on the talk page that could well alienate star contributors. It would seem more appropriate if one of the many administrators that have been more actively involved in discussions on WP:FTN could keep an eye on the page, e.g. Dougweller, MastCell, etc. Elonka's recent brush with pseudoscience was not particularly helpful, when she edited on behalf of a POV-pusher Zero g over a fairly minor matter. Elonka got caught up in her own pet conspiracy theories which she trumpeted on talk pages. A hands-off more informed touch is surely what is required when dealing with pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, you're missing the question being asked. Elonka asked whether the scope of Arbcom remedy X "broadly interpreted" covers topic dispute Y. That's why arbitrators have posted comments. It's to be expected when an Arbcom matter is the subject of the question.
- Separate from "can this sanction be applied", if you are worried that Elonka may misjudge Eubulides' editing, I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force.
- (Separately, some of your apprehensions are badly mistaken. You say that three arbs "weighed in to favor Elonka's management". In fact the question the arbitrators here were addressing was applicability of the remedy. Of these three, not one mentions Elonka, much less shows any "favor" for any named editor to "manage" the issue. My second post mentions Elonka in the context of correcting others' errors, and likewise doesn't "favor" anyone. Without great discussion, can you take care not to claim others to be saying or doing things they haven't.) FT2 (Talk | email) 17:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) You're missing the question being asked. No, I'm answering the question that should have been asked and is implied in the question that was asked: the question goes beyond "should sanctions be applied" to "should Elonka continue to be among the group of admins monitoring such sanctions" considering the judgment she has already shown. As others have stated here and elsewhere, she does "not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers", so how effectively the sanctions can be applied is a function of who is applying them. 2) I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. My conversations with Elonka have already been linked in this thread, and you can see how they went. I can link you to other examples of other discussions with Elonka if you're interested. 3) Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force. The editors I most often interact with are never in territory of having any sanctions applied to their editing. More importantly, with the heavy handedness already in evidence, what I am trying to make very clear is that I (like many other editors) have no intention of going anywhere near those pages. That is the problem being created and that is the question I'm answering, even if the wrong questions are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, your post clearly stated as a given fact that "three arbs" had spoken up to "favor" Elonka's "management" -- and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way. If the question you have is (quite reasonably) "should Elonka be one of those monitoring the sanctions", that's fine, discuss it. But don't ascribe to others, stances that they haven't in any way held, for the purposes of arguing against it. Like it or not, that is the very definition of straw man. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take care there with the same, FT2: ... and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way ... rather than obliquely accusing me of making false statements, in fact, it would be helpful if you would explain how the notion of ArbCom endorsement of Elonka management of these cases evolved, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't spend all their time following ArbCom cases. Are you saying ArbCom's doesn't endorse the preferential standing Elonka has assumed in the management of these articles? I don't knowingly make false statements so I thank you not to accuse me of same. Heavy handed replies to legitimate editor concerns aren't going to help restore good editing by content experts to troubled articles—a situation which appears to have been created and furthered by ArbCom; please address the current issue rather than digressing into how closely I followed what brought us to this point or how intimately I followed the ArbCom case. (You may not have noticed that keeping up with one massive ArbCom case at a time detracts from content contributions, which is what some of us primarily spend our time on.) No, my question goes even farther than "should Elonka be monitoring these sanctions" to "how did we get to a place that ArbCom appears to be appointing or sanctioning people who aren't content experts to place content experts on equal footing with tendentious SPA POV pushers. Now if my impression of what is going on here is incorrect, feel free to correct that impression without accusing me of misrepresenting what I perceive to be the current situation. I'd like some understanding of how this approach (favoring SPA POV pushers over content experts) is going to result in better article content, but please don't ignore the impression created with heavy handed responses that create a distraction. Why is ArbCom furthering an arrangement whereby one admin, who has already been in conflict with content experts, is managing these articles over content experts? I realize you may have a different view from the time you spend in Wiki's messiest situations at ArbCom, but accusing a good editor of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL is not something good editors take lightly; regardless of whether Elonka actually used admin tools, that sort of management of these articles sends a very clear messages to Wiki's finest science editors to stay away from those articles, so they are likely to fall under the influence of the kinds of editors Elonka has supported. The threat of action can be as powerful as admin action. Surely, FT2, you agree that intimate knowledge of sources, and reliance on and understanding of how to use the very best sources, should be a goal in editing science articles, no? Particularly when that intimate knowledge comes in an editor conveniently packaged to include a healthy amount of AGF and civil and courteous editing? Surely that's not the kind of editor you want to discourage from editing, no? So how have we come to a position whereby ArbCom appears to be behind an arrangement that places content experts on par with tendentious POV pushers, an arrangement furthered by what many have stated is ineffective management of that decision? Is the problem in the decision to begin with or in by whom and how it's being enforced. And if my understanding of ArbCom's role in this case is incorrect (which it very well could be, considering the time it takes to wade through them), I welcome you to politely set the record straight for all readers, but accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting something isn't going to resolve the unfortunate fact that POV pushers are now favored over content experts on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I chose my words carefully. I wasn't commenting on the administration, the editors, or any other matter. Questions of how sanctions got chosen, who operates them, other peripheral issues -- none of that was the topic of Sam, Morven or my own comments. You made as a starting point, a comment that you knew was absolutely not so. Three arbs had each made utterly clear they were commenting on applicability of the existing sanction to the topic, and nothing more. Not one specified Elonka or any other admin in any way. (I posted a follow-up post that mentioned her to correct visible errors.) Despite this, you represented as a fact in your post, that "three arbs weighed in favoring Elonka's management", which clearly was not so. Although the posts and their authors specifically and obviously did not comment to suggest who should manage (if anyone should), you stated as fact that all three did so post, a clear, obvious, and significant misrepresentation. It is courteous not to misrepresent others in a discussion, and to apologize if you have inadvertantly done so. That is true for all of us, whatever the case. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take care there with the same, FT2: ... and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way ... rather than obliquely accusing me of making false statements, in fact, it would be helpful if you would explain how the notion of ArbCom endorsement of Elonka management of these cases evolved, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't spend all their time following ArbCom cases. Are you saying ArbCom's doesn't endorse the preferential standing Elonka has assumed in the management of these articles? I don't knowingly make false statements so I thank you not to accuse me of same. Heavy handed replies to legitimate editor concerns aren't going to help restore good editing by content experts to troubled articles—a situation which appears to have been created and furthered by ArbCom; please address the current issue rather than digressing into how closely I followed what brought us to this point or how intimately I followed the ArbCom case. (You may not have noticed that keeping up with one massive ArbCom case at a time detracts from content contributions, which is what some of us primarily spend our time on.) No, my question goes even farther than "should Elonka be monitoring these sanctions" to "how did we get to a place that ArbCom appears to be appointing or sanctioning people who aren't content experts to place content experts on equal footing with tendentious SPA POV pushers. Now if my impression of what is going on here is incorrect, feel free to correct that impression without accusing me of misrepresenting what I perceive to be the current situation. I'd like some understanding of how this approach (favoring SPA POV pushers over content experts) is going to result in better article content, but please don't ignore the impression created with heavy handed responses that create a distraction. Why is ArbCom furthering an arrangement whereby one admin, who has already been in conflict with content experts, is managing these articles over content experts? I realize you may have a different view from the time you spend in Wiki's messiest situations at ArbCom, but accusing a good editor of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL is not something good editors take lightly; regardless of whether Elonka actually used admin tools, that sort of management of these articles sends a very clear messages to Wiki's finest science editors to stay away from those articles, so they are likely to fall under the influence of the kinds of editors Elonka has supported. The threat of action can be as powerful as admin action. Surely, FT2, you agree that intimate knowledge of sources, and reliance on and understanding of how to use the very best sources, should be a goal in editing science articles, no? Particularly when that intimate knowledge comes in an editor conveniently packaged to include a healthy amount of AGF and civil and courteous editing? Surely that's not the kind of editor you want to discourage from editing, no? So how have we come to a position whereby ArbCom appears to be behind an arrangement that places content experts on par with tendentious POV pushers, an arrangement furthered by what many have stated is ineffective management of that decision? Is the problem in the decision to begin with or in by whom and how it's being enforced. And if my understanding of ArbCom's role in this case is incorrect (which it very well could be, considering the time it takes to wade through them), I welcome you to politely set the record straight for all readers, but accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting something isn't going to resolve the unfortunate fact that POV pushers are now favored over content experts on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, your post clearly stated as a given fact that "three arbs" had spoken up to "favor" Elonka's "management" -- and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way. If the question you have is (quite reasonably) "should Elonka be one of those monitoring the sanctions", that's fine, discuss it. But don't ascribe to others, stances that they haven't in any way held, for the purposes of arguing against it. Like it or not, that is the very definition of straw man. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) You're missing the question being asked. No, I'm answering the question that should have been asked and is implied in the question that was asked: the question goes beyond "should sanctions be applied" to "should Elonka continue to be among the group of admins monitoring such sanctions" considering the judgment she has already shown. As others have stated here and elsewhere, she does "not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers", so how effectively the sanctions can be applied is a function of who is applying them. 2) I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. My conversations with Elonka have already been linked in this thread, and you can see how they went. I can link you to other examples of other discussions with Elonka if you're interested. 3) Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force. The editors I most often interact with are never in territory of having any sanctions applied to their editing. More importantly, with the heavy handedness already in evidence, what I am trying to make very clear is that I (like many other editors) have no intention of going anywhere near those pages. That is the problem being created and that is the question I'm answering, even if the wrong questions are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, Mathsci, content issues are not to be considered. Both the admins you mention, while of good intent, carry heavy POVs relative to the subject area, and DoughWeller has expressed a willingness to allow OR. So no- an admin willing to restrain herself to editor behavior is exactly what we need. Tim Vickers and Eubulides, I guarantee you, are not going to get whacked- certainly not over content decisions on the part of the admin, not without me making such a stink as you've seldom seen. However, again, any use of admin authority (including threats) to determine content is out. Thus, what the admin actually knows about the subject does not need to be that great. Rather, they need to know policy. If people here want to set up WP as something done or overseen by experts, fine, just change WP. But don't try to apply it in limited cases, or without officially changing WP. So, please leave off thinking that an admin should determine content. Else, I have a few admins I'd like to oversee articles and apply these sanctions. Not really (that is, I respect NPOV and WP too much), but you get the point. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian.He has made extraordinary statements about adminstrators Dougweller and MastCell. Elonka's interactions with Eubulides have been problematic. It is unclear why she feels that her intervention here will help matters; is she determined to make a point with one of her ill-fated "experiments"? Why has she made no mention of the beneficial participation of experts on this page? She has not said one positive thing about Eubulides, which surely must sound alarm bells for many wikipedians, including those on the arbitration committee. Elonka appears to have serious problems with expert contributors. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- I edit the Chiropractic article, though not much in recent weeks. I think 1RR would be preferable to 0RR and no remedy may be needed at all. I follow 1RR voluntarily, and if 1RR is applied to the page I might decide to voluntarily follow 0RR at that page.
- I agree with SandyGeorgia that Eubulides is an extremely valuable contributor to the Chiropractic article. Eubulides puts in a lot of time and effort following the various discussions and reading the sources. Eubulides listens and responds to the substance of arguments, is very civil and knowledgeable, avoids editwarring, and acts as a stabilizing influence to help form compromises between other editors. I often disagree with Eubulides in content disputes, but I nevertheless believe that any remedy applied to the page which alienates Eubulides would be doing far more harm than good.
- I agree with Martinphi that admins acting in their role as admins should not enforce decisions on content disputes; this is essential to having the best chance of maintaining a NPOV encyclopedia.
- WJBScribe, I don't quite understand on what basis you're criticizing Jehochman for expressing an opinion here. Perhaps your theory is that if someone has criticized someone else extensively, then they should not criticize that same person again. With respect, I disagree with that theory, and apparently so does Elonka.
- Mathsci, re "Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian": please comment on the substance of this discussion, not on the participants. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have refactored the first comment. Martinphi's comments about MastCell and Dougweller seem quite unjustified, in view of their known qualities as administrators or editors. This debate concerns how various personalities might interact if certain sanctions were implemented. I would add that WP:expert retention is also a major issue here. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for refactoring, Mathsci. You've stated that some of Martinphi's comments seem unjustified, but you haven't explained why you hold that opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have refactored the first comment. Martinphi's comments about MastCell and Dougweller seem quite unjustified, in view of their known qualities as administrators or editors. This debate concerns how various personalities might interact if certain sanctions were implemented. I would add that WP:expert retention is also a major issue here. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Notification of Elonka's involvement at chiropractic
Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.
Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article.[9][10][11] and Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides.[12][13] Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Those were all in July. Any evidence that she should recuse herself from the recent dispute? --erachima talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unrelated. While Eubulides has edited the article recently, he is not a part of the current dispute, so past dealings regarding him should be moot. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether Elonka is not part of the current dipute. Per WP:UNINVOLVED: If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question
- Since Elonka has been involved in a past dispute she does not qualify as uninvolved. QuackGuru 05:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- She isn't a significant editor of the page, and she wasn't in this content dispute but rather some trivial thing over redlinks that's unrelated to the issue. --erachima talk 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, this wasn't a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the style of formatting for references. This misrepresentation is typical of the disruptive editing that occurs at Talk: Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether Elonka is a significant editor or is not involved in a current content dispute. Once an admin has been involved, then that admin is disqualified to be uninvolved.
- She has been involved in a content dispute in the past with a significant contributor[14][15][16] and was edit warring against a significant contributor.[17][18] QuackGuru 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, this wasn't a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the style of formatting for references. This misrepresentation is typical of the disruptive editing that occurs at Talk: Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- She isn't a significant editor of the page, and she wasn't in this content dispute but rather some trivial thing over redlinks that's unrelated to the issue. --erachima talk 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, the diffs you cite show Elonka in a rather mild tussle with Eubulides about a technical issue of whether or not to link journal names and publishers in references. This is Manual of Style matter rather than a content issue. Elonka hasnt participated in writing the content of the article at all. I personally agree with Elonka that all journal names should be linked, even if they are redlinks. When I am acting as an uninvolved admin, my first step is to improve the citations that are already in use (collapsing duplicates, adding redlinks, finding ISBNs and OCLCs, etc), so that I as an uninvolved admin can better grasp what parts of the article are well cited and which are not. It also invites editors to research the sources that they are using in order to write meaningful stubs, which helps everyone involved to understand exactly what bias each source has, so that the source can be evaluated more thoroughly. If the editors dont do this, I will often go ahead and create bland stubs for them to get the ball rolling. I am sure that a lot of admins do the same, or if they dont -- they should! The tussle that Elonka had with Eubulides over this was ages ago, and is not a content issue. Do you think that those diffs indicate that is Elonka likely to take a side against Eubulides? Or act like an involved admin? What conclusions are you making about those diffs? It looks to me like you are inventing a problem in order to declare that Elonka is involved. To what end? John Vandenberg (chat) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Followup query
Per the three links posted at the top of this thread, I see a message at Talk:Chiropractic stating: "FYI, according to discussions at the administrators' noticeboard, there appears to be a rough consensus among uninvolved editors and admins that the Chiropractic article falls within the scope of the Pseudoscience arbitration case." I'm not seeing that rough consensus; I'm seeing as much well founded doubt, concern and opposition as support. Does the consensus reside in the fact that the decision is under the remit of ArbCom per the previous case, and some arbs and former arbs are in favor, in spite of concern and warnings from other editors? I just want to make sure I understand what drives this process. Since the result of putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers could be article deterioration, I hope we're clear on why we're doing this. I'm not yet clear if it's a good idea because I have yet to see it well implemented, but what I have seen is editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers bringing controversial articles like Evolution to featured status rather quickly; this is what we don't want to risk losing by putting our finest editors on par with tendentious SPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are two issues here. One is whether chiropractic should be under "article probation"; it appears there is support for this, and I would tend to agree, since it has been the scene of unfortunate editing practices and in theory probation simply makes these easier to deal with. Properly implemented, probation should make it easier for excellent editors like Tim or Eubulides, or User:Dematt, to develop the article while better restricting tendentious or agenda-driven accounts.
The other issue is whether Elonka should be one of the admins enforcing the probation. While Elonka undoubtedly does many things well and I have absolute confidence that she acts in good faith, I am not confident that her involvement here will lead to a better editing environment or an article which better furthers the project's goal of producing a serious, respected reference work. That is my opinion based on a series of prior events which I don't feel like elaborating upon at this juncture, but which are probably high-profile enough to be familiar. My concern is that her approach has in the past tended to place solid editors at a disadvantage with respect to agenda-driven tendentious accounts. I think that's the sort of "probation" which Sandy and a few others are concerned about. MastCell Talk 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I second SG's concern regarding the rough consensus.
- The notification at the Chiro talk page was 00:43, 26 September 2008. The discussion on the notice board at this time was thus. Of the participants who had taken place in that time frame, four had raised objections (Risker, Eubulides, Mathsci, and CrohnieGal), and four had made "in principle" agreement (Matthew Brown, FT2, Sam Blacketer, Guy).
- Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page was created two-ish days before at 15:35, 24 September 2008.
- brenneman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno'. Most of the people who don't like the idea say the reason is Elonka's involvement, and not whether or not the article falls under the ArbCom case. Since there are other admins who've volunteered to work on this (such as myself, MBisanz, and brenneman on Talk:Chiropractic), it shouldn't be a problem.
- Elonka has stated that the Admin log was created early as a platform to figure out which editors would be considered involved, so that they could be notified if the above thread resulted in a consensus that the article falls into the ArbCom case. Being prepared seems kosher to me.
- Given the amount of resistance to having Elonka work on this above, though, I do have to agree that she might wish to remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. I make no assumptions about her actual involvement, but editors would raise a royal stink if she actually applied any sanctions, which I believe is generally not worth everyone's collective time.
- As a possible other solution, which I believe would actually be better all around and should address the concerns, perhaps everyone on the list of uninvolved admins should discuss any sanctions with the others on the list before applying them? This should ensure that heavy-handed, improper, unnecessary, or otherwise improper sanctions aren't carried out. I know that I have no bones to pick in this area and can remain neutral, and I believe that MBisanz would be the same. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that however this turns out doesn't involve too many drahmahz. lifebaka++ 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not only sanctions: it's the threat of sanction and unjust accusations towards solid editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would assume that solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions and can continue edit as normal. The sanctions, as far as I can tell, should and will only be directed towards users who are disrupting work on the article. However, if these solid editors could actually be affected by sanctions, under the instance I just described, I would hope that they will adjust their editing patterns such that sanctions will not actually be necessary.
- What I believe you are objecting strongly to, when you allude to "putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers" (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that you believe the sanctions imply that all editors working on Chiropractic are somehow disruptive. I'm not sure that this necessarily holds true. Simply because there are issues involving an article does not mean that all users working on that article are at fault. From what I've seen watching the article for the past few days, most of the contributors there don't cause trouble. So, the purpose of the sanctions first should be to determine which editors are holding up consensus by beating dead horses; are edit waring in excess, with or without consensus on their side; or are making edits specifically against consensus. Then, these editors can be properly dealt with through the use of whatever sanctions are necessary so that the article can continue to be developed/worked on/etc. I personally am still working on the first part of this process, since I haven't been watching the article very long. I can assure everyone keeping tabs on this that whichever editors are considered the most solid at Chiropractic probably are not currently the ones I am watching. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that made sense. lifebaka++ 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- All editors working on Chiro are disruptive? No, that assumption is completely incorrect; have you read this thread? Aware that I'm repeating myself, I'll try again. It is not the threat of sanctions, because the editors that I most often associate with and edit with would never put themselves in a position of being anywhere near sanction; they just don't edit that way. When reputable editors, known for solid reliance on the highest quality sources as much as they are known for civil courteous and respectful editing and "writing for the enemy" are accused of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL, the issue is that good editors will simply stay away from the article and our articles will suffer as others who are coddled and supported move in. We have someone involved in managing these articles who has already shown tendencies towards some editors and not others. Most editors of repute don't enjoy having their reputations damaged by heavy-handed accusations. And if this begins to happen across other science or medical articles, well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also point out the level of commitment, knowledge and awareness of policy that it takes to maintain multiple articles subject to off-Wiki canvassing at featured status: articles like autism and Asperger syndrome. Eubulides has 875 edits on Template:FA autism, 848 on Template:FA Daylight saving time and 309 on Template:FA Asperger syndrome (and he maintains just about everything related to those articles), and yet there has not been an issue with his editing until Elonka's accusations; how many admins have that kind of record on any article, or a featured article, or a controversial article? For this arrangement to result in the professional articles we should aspire to for medicine requires effective and fair management by experienced admins who respect, understand and recognize quality edits, editors and sourcing. We already have indications that may not be the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I believe I understand. While there have allusions to activity of that sort on the part of Eubulides above (of which I have no opinion), I do not believe that is the reason the article falls under the possibility of sanctions. The reason for that is that the article involves a dispute between mainstream and minority views of science, and is the issues cropping up are of the same sort as those in the Pseudoscience case (the application of which is supposed to be "broadly interpreted"). Specific actions of editors don't appear to have factored largely into this decision, whether these actions be disruptive or not. It seems your complaint is with Elonka specifically and not the sanctions generally. Because of how apparently widespread sentiments of this nature are, I asked Elonka above to please remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. It will and is clearly a cause of contention, and I'm sure that myself and MBisanz, as well as any other admins who would like to help us, can handle the dispute on our own. Elonka has indicated to me that she was hoping to leave this mostly to us anyways, so this shouldn't be too big of a deal.
- If there are similar sentiments about me, I will also gladly remove myself from the list of uninvolved admins. It is not worth the collective time of everyone involved if actions undertaken by myself in this need to be second-guessed and checked over, or will become the source of unnecessary drahmahz. There are other admins who could easily perform the same function. So, please let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add in my two cents, I'm intending to take a light-touch method to sanctions on this article. It is on my watchlist now and I will probably at some point place a comment on the talk page invoking the need for reliable sources, adherence to the fringe guidelines, and an emphasis on discussion over edit warring. Hopefully that will be all that is required. If not, then other methods will need to be considered. Ideally the article should be editable to the most people, so I am thinking that per-editor restrictions will be the way I will lean. Probably starting with 1RR on warring editors and escalating to article-edit bans. My goal is that the mere fact sanctions may be applied will persuade tendentious editors from disrupting things. MBisanz talk 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also point out the level of commitment, knowledge and awareness of policy that it takes to maintain multiple articles subject to off-Wiki canvassing at featured status: articles like autism and Asperger syndrome. Eubulides has 875 edits on Template:FA autism, 848 on Template:FA Daylight saving time and 309 on Template:FA Asperger syndrome (and he maintains just about everything related to those articles), and yet there has not been an issue with his editing until Elonka's accusations; how many admins have that kind of record on any article, or a featured article, or a controversial article? For this arrangement to result in the professional articles we should aspire to for medicine requires effective and fair management by experienced admins who respect, understand and recognize quality edits, editors and sourcing. We already have indications that may not be the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- All editors working on Chiro are disruptive? No, that assumption is completely incorrect; have you read this thread? Aware that I'm repeating myself, I'll try again. It is not the threat of sanctions, because the editors that I most often associate with and edit with would never put themselves in a position of being anywhere near sanction; they just don't edit that way. When reputable editors, known for solid reliance on the highest quality sources as much as they are known for civil courteous and respectful editing and "writing for the enemy" are accused of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL, the issue is that good editors will simply stay away from the article and our articles will suffer as others who are coddled and supported move in. We have someone involved in managing these articles who has already shown tendencies towards some editors and not others. Most editors of repute don't enjoy having their reputations damaged by heavy-handed accusations. And if this begins to happen across other science or medical articles, well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not only sanctions: it's the threat of sanction and unjust accusations towards solid editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1RR proposed for all editors of Chiropractic
An administrator has now proposed a 1RR rule for every editor at Chiropractic. This proposal seemingly goes against several of the comments made above. For example, it disagrees with the comment "solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions", as the rule affects solid editors along with everyone else. Discusson of this proposal is currently at Talk:Chiropractic #Requesting page protection. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Good Article Nominees
A user, A State of Trance, has nominated at least 5 articles at GAN without being a major contributor. For some of his articles, he hasn't even edited. All of these articles do not meet criteria. What should be done about this? He is disruptive to and only creates a backlog at GAN. You can check the contributions of the user here. I'm removing these submissions from GAN.--LAAFansign review 01:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed submissions before. I think that the GAN process is kept free from binding rules (like those for FAC) in order to maintain the somewhat informal atmosphere. If they don't appear to be reasonable noms and he isn't a main contributor, I would endorse that decision. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- On a side note, you don't need to be a major contributor to nominate an article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I recall when one of the articles for which I was a primary contributor (there are about 450 that fit that category) but hadn't yet had time to appropriately research was nominated by somebody with no history with the article about a year ago. I made a statement at the page that it wasn't ready, but it was still "failed" anyway, meaning that if I ever do decide to improve the article, it's recorded as having failed once which may prejudice later reviewers. I think that sort of thing is quite disruptive personally. Orderinchaos 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what GAN is like, but I've been watching featured article nominations for a few years now. A previous failed FAC doesn't prejudice things in any way. --Carnildo (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't prejudge a GA by a past failure unless good faith peer review suggestions were largely left unresolved but I can't speak for everyone. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can dismiss the claim of prejudice towards previous failed GAN right away. I have yet to meet and see this kind of prejudice in the GA system whatsoever. What evidence made you suggest so, Orderinchaos? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree, if anything failed GA nomination shows that an article has already been through the process and could potentially have improved even more if anything. All reviewers I know just judge the article on how it is at the time of nomination. --Banime (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I recall when one of the articles for which I was a primary contributor (there are about 450 that fit that category) but hadn't yet had time to appropriately research was nominated by somebody with no history with the article about a year ago. I made a statement at the page that it wasn't ready, but it was still "failed" anyway, meaning that if I ever do decide to improve the article, it's recorded as having failed once which may prejudice later reviewers. I think that sort of thing is quite disruptive personally. Orderinchaos 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- On a side note, you don't need to be a major contributor to nominate an article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The 19th block ever - Request for a serious topic ban/ban for a former community banned edit-warrior
Today, we witnessed the 19th block ever of Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).
Refer also to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf.
This user and edit-warrior has been editing for so long and has amassed a large number of edits. He's been an asset to Wikipedia in some areas especially with edits dealing with tagging and other technical ones (moves, redirects, etc) though I am not sure if some other editors would agree with me since there have been many editors discussing his moves during different periods (see his talk archives).
However, his history of blocks (with no less than 18 19 blocks) is more than alarming. He has a history of edit warring and tendentious editing. In fact,he was community banned back on November 2006 for "[his] extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience" as his block log shows. (see indefinite block of 10 November 2006 by user:Dmcdevit). At that time, I opposed an indefinite ban and opted for a topic ban instead (see comments by my former username user:Szvest by following the link above)...
A couple of months later, he filed an unban request and sent it to the ArbCom. And on June 2007 user:Newyorkbrad, acting as an ArbCom clerk at that time and implementing the ArbCom ruling, unblocked him with "implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year" as shown on his block log.
Between June 2007 (his return) and May 2008 (his last block) he was blocked no less then 6 times for the same behavior.
...Now, and after exactly 2 years after his community ban, here we are again. Nothing has changed at all.
I must say that I've had relatively good interactions with him for more than 3 years now but I really regret seeing no change in his edit-warring behavior. It is really too much and it is more than "exhasting patience". I cannot edit articles with someone who has a long history of edit warring with no signs of restraint.
So please comment on this issue because it is really tiring to see someone with a long history of non-stop edit-warring still editing Wikipedia and never caring about wp:Consensus (he refuses to acknowledge there has been any consensus as long as he's the only one not accepting it - see Morocco's talk page and the archive page N°2 of the talk).
I, therefore, see no other option except requesting a topic ban (or a complete ban) for user:Koavf unless he promisses the community seriously that he'd be respecting wp:Consensus and abide by [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg]]. He's said this before requesting his unban appeal and I must be very cautious to assume good faith now. A 20th block would be a joke.
Note: The following is a summary of the community ban of 2006 for people who won't read the whole detailed link above (copied and pasted from that same thread):
Summary of 2006 community ban poll
- Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*,Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
- Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
- Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
- Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
- Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
- Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*
- Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)
* indicates non-admins.
- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-- fayssal - wiki up® 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that I was just acting as an Arbitration Clerk last year implementing a committee decision. I don't believe I had any opinion one way or the other at that time regarding the unblock/restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Endorse ban. I know the history rather vaguely, though i have read up on it just now. 19 blocks? Inexcuseable, no matter the cause. Note that if you remove the later unblocks, it's 15 blocks total. That's still a ridiculous amount. Wizardman 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban Ditto, and really does seem incapabl of working well with others. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have no objection. It looks like they have such a long history of disruption that they are incapable of changing. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban I don't have any memories of interacting with this person, but having just spent some time reviewing his case, and he has not shown any desire to abide by either the standard set of expected behaviors of all Wikipedia editors, nor has he been particularly good at abiding by the specific set of guidelines developed when his last indef ban was lifted. It is an insult to all editors to be given a second chance as he was, and then to refuse to ammend ones behavior. The ban should return. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban I do not think I've interacted with this user directly, but a look through his history of interactions with other editors and block history shows ample cause for a ban. henrik•talk
- Endorse ban This shows why we need a forum like WP:RfBan. MBisanz talk 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban - 19 blocks is simply too many second chances. Where is the theoretical limit to the amount of blocks one user can be issued before they can be banned? I'd guess at less than 19. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems he hasn't learnt his lesson. However, I'm hesitant to say ban permanently because of all the good he has done. Some people are just very passionate about the topics they're interested in. I don't see that as a problem. -- how do you turn this on 12:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this argument has been used and tested more than once. I, myself, used it twice in different years. It never worked and I, among many admins and users since 2006, see that as a problem indeed. -- fayssal - wiki up® 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Well, one of our guidelines is WP:COI, and I suppose Koavf is breaking that by his constant revert wars to his own preferred version (please correct me if I've completely misinterpreted that guideline). If he's causing even an arbitrator heartache, I suppose a ban would be needed, unfortunately. -- how do you turn this on 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this argument has been used and tested more than once. I, myself, used it twice in different years. It never worked and I, among many admins and users since 2006, see that as a problem indeed. -- fayssal - wiki up® 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't see any WP:COI issue at all, not even WP:OWN. His userpage has the answer:
- a) I think that Wikipedia is one of the few Internet communities worth joining, and the anarchistic approach to editing is its strongest feature.
- b) I particularly try to represent the interests of truth. -- fayssal - wiki up® 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Um. A consistent troublemaker, but looking at it in more detail the last block was in May, which is a while ago. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse 19 blocks negates ANY amount of good work. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban - Inexcusable behaviour and thus ban, trumps any 'good work' seen. Time between recent block and last block only highlights the sustained disruption. Caulde 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment/Question - Koavf also has 110K+ edits, so that's basically one block per ~5,500 edits. Looking through his contributions, he has a pretty varied interests. The latest block was for edit warring on Morocco - I would assume most of his blocks and problems were for edit warring on Moroccan or Western Saharan topics? If that's the case wouldn't it make sense to try a strict topic ban on all Moroccan/Western Saharan articles (interprated broadly), perhaps even with 1RR per week restriction to go with it? I'm not familiar with this editor, but looking through his contribs shows that he's also doing a lot of good editing, and I would like to explore the alternatives for the ban. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but making a lot of edits doesn't excuse a user from poor conduct. I mean, User:Bearcat has 200K edits, but no blocks. Wizardman 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I simply wanted to note the number because it shows Koavf has done a lot in addition to the stuff that lead to the previous ban. What it also means is that there is little chance of doing a comprehensive review of his contributions... However, my impression is that his behaviour outside Morocco/Western Sahara is – as far as edit warring is concerned – within the community norms. There are some blocks outside his hot topics, but not that many. The past history has shown that he is either unwilling or unable to moderate his behaviour, so the solution is either a full ban or a topic ban. At the moment, I would favour trying topic ban and seeing where that leads. – Sadalmelik ☎ 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but making a lot of edits doesn't excuse a user from poor conduct. I mean, User:Bearcat has 200K edits, but no blocks. Wizardman 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ban in favour of a partial ban on Morocco-related articles. Everyme 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comments A few things that may (or may not?) be informative: In the past (at least), the user uses tools to "help" with page moves from WP:RM and WP:CFD. This is part of why the seemingly high edit count. We've had quite a few issues with the user's past use of the tools. (Including using the tools to edit war to "enforce" a "decision" (which may or may not be "appropriate"), followed by less-than-civil comments to the users in question.) I'm roughly neutral to the ban - quantity of blocks don't sway me as much as the quality of blocks - and he may indeed deserve a new lengthy block for continually getting blocked for 3RR. And based on past experience all tool usage should probably be revoked. - jc37 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban. This really saddens me, because I've worked with the editor in the past in encouraging him to use WP:CFD rather than performing unilateral category renames, and I think since then he's become a net asset to CFD. (All of the blocks are relatively unrelated to his good work there, though.) But 19 blocks is just too many for the community to tolerate, especially when the blocks seem to be for the same problems repeating over and over again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question isn't the problem limited to Morocco and Western Sahara-related articles? I'm concerned about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Topic bans are a solution for productive editors who have one hot button; why aren't we entertaining this instead? DurovaCharge! 02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse ban, user may have made some positive contributions, but these are outweighed by the constant edit warring. At this point, I think the user is more trouble than they're worth. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
- Oppose ban - I would like to see a topic ban tried first, along the lines Durova suggests. And remove all his tool access (purge his monobook etc). fish&karate 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the looks of things this bloke is an incorrigible edit-warrior, due to the whole Western Sahara independence POV thingy. In which case I would simply suggest a topic-ban from this set of articles. A full siteban may not be needed. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban on the set of articles that he usually gets in trouble with. I'm very hesitant to ban any editor with that amount of good edits because he is very passionate about certain subjects. However, his disruption to those certain subjects should be ended. --Banime (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban. Clearly Koavf has a lot to contribute to the project but just can't be relied on in this single area. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
removing posts from an RfA
During what I consider a small and unrelated banter with Promethean (talk · contribs), I stumbled upon his removal of a thread from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Editorofthewiki. In the edit summary, he implies that he had "permission" to remove those posts. Since I couldn't find where he obtained that permission, and usual practice is to move overlong or otherwise disruptive threads from RfAs to their respective talk pages, and not to remove them wholesale, I asked Promethean about it, to which he responded by removing my posting as "trolling". I assume he did this in the wake of our exchange on my talk page, but the post removal issue is a completely different thing and my inquiry at his talk page was thoroughly good-faithed. I'd appreciate it if someone else could ask him about that permission, and if necessary, let him know that usual practice is not to remove threads entirely but to move them to the RfA talk page with a link from the main RfA page. Or am I completely mistaken here and it was entirely ok to remove those postings? Everyme 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- He asked on the RfA and I said OK to my comments being removed. He didn't get a response from How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) for his comments to be removed, although I can't see him disagreeing with the outcome; the trolling has been removed and we can move on. I'm not so sure we displays of trolling displayed for future viewing. Perhaps a [disruptive thread removed, viewable in page history ~~~~] could be added under Iridescent's oppose. EJF (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked HDYTTO to comment here. EJF (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea, thanks. Also, I think it constitutes at least a remarkable departure from usual practice to remove non-vandalism postings from an RfA without moving them to the talk page. Everyme 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't agree to the removal of the posts, just that he stopped posting irrelevant comments to the request, as he was getting over the top and starting to offend and irritate. They should be moved to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for consuming my time Everyme, as pointed out I had permission from 1/2 editors, presumably the other would have wanted the same. By principal anyone can remove anything they write, however it is common courtesy to ask anyone who has replied to it so that you dont change the context of thier posts. The Edit in question was mild humour which two editors on the RFA indicated could be precived as an attack. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, this thread does not need admin intervention, and should be thus closed as soon as possible. -- how do you turn this on 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think this is just drama mongering. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks against me. Also, you should have immediately moved those comments to the RfA talk page, as is custom. I only posted here because you left me no other choice. Be more careful in the future, thank you so much. Everyme 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Saying this thread is drama mongering is not a personal attack, your views are misguided to say the least. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please, both of you stop. The comment has been removed. Caulde 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Prom, it's comments like that that cause people to not take you seriously. Please desist assuming you know people's motives. -- how do you turn this on 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- You said it youself, why bring it here if it does not need admin intervention, an editor with "2 years experience and 12k+ edits" should know this and most likly brought it here because i undid his edits as trolling (because they were) and he knew it would just make drama. Im sorry but i wont play footsies and i will call a spade a spade. Can someone archive this thanks :) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Stop the assumption of bad faith and the personal attacks. And please make an effort to get the point: I posted here (i) because your action was unacceptable, and only because (ii) you forced me to. Everyme 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, it was wrong to bring it here. It was also wrong to say doing so was drama mongering. Labeling his edits as trolling isn't exactly going to help the situation any better is it? While the situation doesn't need direct admin intervention, experienced users who watch this page could always help with advice. This will get archived like any other thread here. -- how do you turn this on 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- You said it youself, why bring it here if it does not need admin intervention, an editor with "2 years experience and 12k+ edits" should know this and most likly brought it here because i undid his edits as trolling (because they were) and he knew it would just make drama. Im sorry but i wont play footsies and i will call a spade a spade. Can someone archive this thanks :) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Saying this thread is drama mongering is not a personal attack, your views are misguided to say the least. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks against me. Also, you should have immediately moved those comments to the RfA talk page, as is custom. I only posted here because you left me no other choice. Be more careful in the future, thank you so much. Everyme 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think this is just drama mongering. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, this thread does not need admin intervention, and should be thus closed as soon as possible. -- how do you turn this on 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for consuming my time Everyme, as pointed out I had permission from 1/2 editors, presumably the other would have wanted the same. By principal anyone can remove anything they write, however it is common courtesy to ask anyone who has replied to it so that you dont change the context of thier posts. The Edit in question was mild humour which two editors on the RFA indicated could be precived as an attack. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's times where 'keeping stump' is the best method of approach. This was an inappropriate and unacceptable comment on an RfA (which although self-removed) does not condone the reaction you shared here. Although there have been no objections for the removal (it should have been moved) with those directly involved in that discussions, alleging that this is drama-mongering is not the way to resolve this. Promethean, you were discussed only the other week on this noticeboard, note that and make sure you remove yourself from situations akin to this in the future; if you don't you may be facing blocks for disruption. Caulde 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I objected to the removal. It should be moved, not removed, on to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Amended. Caulde 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I objected to the removal. It should be moved, not removed, on to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't agree to the removal of the posts, just that he stopped posting irrelevant comments to the request, as he was getting over the top and starting to offend and irritate. They should be moved to the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea, thanks. Also, I think it constitutes at least a remarkable departure from usual practice to remove non-vandalism postings from an RfA without moving them to the talk page. Everyme 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact remains that Promethean violated policy by unilaterally removing non-vandalism posts. He should be decidely warned against that kind of behaviour and advised to exercise greater caution and, most importantly, to move arguably disruptive threads to the talk page of the RfA, and not to remove them wholesale on a hunch. We can't have reckless removal of postings just because someone doesn't like them. At least he should correct his error and move those posts to the talk page of the RfA now. Everyme 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- What policy did i violate? Not that it matters this thread has been marked as resolved. Happy Editing «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Prom, how about add the moved threads to the talk page, and stop arguing here? -- how do you turn this on 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Put it on the talk page «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Prom, how about add the moved threads to the talk page, and stop arguing here? -- how do you turn this on 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- What policy did i violate? Not that it matters this thread has been marked as resolved. Happy Editing «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Promethean's behaviour
Promethean not only shows no insight into the unacceptability of his own behaviour, he also responds with massive assumption of bad faith, incivility (where ironically he likes to lecture people about civility) and personal attacks. I ask that he cease all of that immediately and stop things like e.g. claiming that my good-faithed notification of this thread constitutes an "Abuse of edit summeries" when I just didn't see the use of giving him another full posting to remove as "trolling". Everyme 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The worst aspect imho is that with this removal, Promethean was trying to hide comments he himself made that he probably recognised as placing him in a bad light. EJF's and How do you turn this on's where not problematic at all and thus I can only assume intentional obscuring as his reason for removing the thread and his continued refusal to approropriately restore those comments to the RfA talk page (where it could be argued they shouldn't have been removed from the main RfA page in the first place, and certainly not by Promethean himself, and most definitely not without the permission of all involved editors). Everyme 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Promethean needs to consider whether his comments add heat or light to discussions in the future. His conduct is often far below the standards accepted by most people; contributions to the Steve Crossin ban discussions as one example. A refocusing on the mainspace is clearly needed; of his last 1000 edits, only 18 have been to the article space. There was no consensus to ban him when it was proposed recently, but patience will soon run out. Has mentorship been proposed? The guidance of a good editor may help get him back on track. EJF (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect the sole basis of this thread has been resolved and im yet to see anything that overly concerns me, i dont think we need another topical discussion. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
- What you think is not especially relevant at this point. I support the idea of mentorship and possibly a temporary ban from project space, other than reporting unambiguous vandalism. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally agree to that it for some reason there was justification for it, with the exclusion of WP:ABUSE and WP:AIV «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- You would agree to the outlined conditions Guy sets out above? Caulde 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- With the exclusion of AIV and ABUSE yes. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might want to try being less contentious and having less of a chip on your shoulder, and less dictating of terms in situations where you're in the wrong. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps, but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here. Seems like Promethean is offering to honour a topic ban from project space, and consider mentorship. That sounds like progress. I don't know who would mentor Promethean, but I would suggest that if a one month topic ban from project space is honoured then it might represent genuine progress in the "biting the lip and walking away" department. Should we not give it a try? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. He says he will be co-operative, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. I'll be happy to keep an eye on him. -- how do you turn this on 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- In light of Swatjesters remark, It seems that my willingness to stay away from the project space has lead to automatic self incrimination. Because of this I have reconsidered my self acceptance of the restriction. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bad idea. The likely alternative is rather more likely to impact on your editing outside of project space. A lot of people find your "help" profoundly unhelpful in project space. Do you actually want to be kicked from the project? I'd say not, and I don't really want to kick you, but some do, and the voluntary restriction was a good way of defusing that. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) occupies himself by window shopping for a mentor.. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bad idea. The likely alternative is rather more likely to impact on your editing outside of project space. A lot of people find your "help" profoundly unhelpful in project space. Do you actually want to be kicked from the project? I'd say not, and I don't really want to kick you, but some do, and the voluntary restriction was a good way of defusing that. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- In light of Swatjesters remark, It seems that my willingness to stay away from the project space has lead to automatic self incrimination. Because of this I have reconsidered my self acceptance of the restriction. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. He says he will be co-operative, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. I'll be happy to keep an eye on him. -- how do you turn this on 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps, but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here. Seems like Promethean is offering to honour a topic ban from project space, and consider mentorship. That sounds like progress. I don't know who would mentor Promethean, but I would suggest that if a one month topic ban from project space is honoured then it might represent genuine progress in the "biting the lip and walking away" department. Should we not give it a try? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might want to try being less contentious and having less of a chip on your shoulder, and less dictating of terms in situations where you're in the wrong. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- With the exclusion of AIV and ABUSE yes. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- You would agree to the outlined conditions Guy sets out above? Caulde 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally agree to that it for some reason there was justification for it, with the exclusion of WP:ABUSE and WP:AIV «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- What you think is not especially relevant at this point. I support the idea of mentorship and possibly a temporary ban from project space, other than reporting unambiguous vandalism. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect the sole basis of this thread has been resolved and im yet to see anything that overly concerns me, i dont think we need another topical discussion. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked
Admins will have noticed there is a new blocking option which can prevent blocked users from editing their own talk page. It has proved quite popular with some admins in the short time it has been around. Unfortunately this option prevents users from requesting an independent review of the block which has always been considered inappropriate. So can we just establish that this option should not be used without very good reason? I have already added it to the blocking policy as I believe there is likely to be even more consensus about this than about the e-mail blocking option. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with you 100% on this one. There's rarely a reason not to allow users to contest their own block. If they're abusing unblock templates or doin' something else bad on their talk page after the block, the page can simply be protected. lifebaka++ 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- This option is very helpful when dealing with Grawp; otherwise, it should be used very sparingly. Maxim(talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's only rarely a reason why a blocked editor should not be able to edit their talk page. Per Maxim, this will be useful for things like Grawp, but otherwise should never be used. Can I ask, is it unchecked by default? Thanks -- how do you turn this on 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is checked, which means it is set so that editors are allowed to edit their own talk page by default. It may be useful for proper-banned users and confirmed socks of users who are known to abuse their talk page. Otherwise I see no reason to use it pre-emptively. In fact given our talk-page protection policies I don't see much reason for this option at all. As an aside, as mentioned in a thread just above and at WP:VPT, all previously blocked IPs are currently unable to edit their talk page. I'm hoping this is just an oversight to be fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can we add a note or link to the relevant media-wiki page (which I can't find) instructing them on the limited situations in which this should be used?--chaser - t 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. The page is MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk for the text right by the checkbox, or MediaWiki:Blockiptext for the text at the top. -- how do you turn this on 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I modified MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk. How's the wording?--chaser - t 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Confusing. I just saw "Allow user to edit own talk page (for persistent vandals only)". I think it should read "Allow user to edit own talk page (Disable for persistent vandals only)" or I misunderstood everything. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected. there was an intermediate revision that not only shortened but changed the meaning.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I modified MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk. How's the wording?--chaser - t 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. The page is MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk for the text right by the checkbox, or MediaWiki:Blockiptext for the text at the top. -- how do you turn this on 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's only rarely a reason why a blocked editor should not be able to edit their talk page. Per Maxim, this will be useful for things like Grawp, but otherwise should never be used. Can I ask, is it unchecked by default? Thanks -- how do you turn this on 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, because this is the first time I've heard of this new feature: In the event that circumstances arise in response to which we would previously have protected the talk page (unblock abuse, misuse of the talk page while blocked, non-specific shenanigans etc.) ought we still to do so? Or should we be reblocking with the new feature enabled? CIreland (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would it really make a difference? -- how do you turn this on 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, yes? Protection has the disadvantage of preventing all users from editing the page but the advantage of also preventing editing by socks of the blocked user. The reverse is true of the new method. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I was thinking of IPs only, where the page can be semi protected - I guess I forgot about auto-confirmed users. Apologies. -- how do you turn this on 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, yes? Protection has the disadvantage of preventing all users from editing the page but the advantage of also preventing editing by socks of the blocked user. The reverse is true of the new method. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would it really make a difference? -- how do you turn this on 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- This option is very helpful when dealing with Grawp; otherwise, it should be used very sparingly. Maxim(talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I was aware this option is intended to replace the action of protecting the talk page, so as to allow other users to still edit it normally. It should therefore be used in all and only the instances where protection would previously have occurred. Happy‑melon 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, in future, if an account is blocked and starts abusing the unblock request process we can unblock/reblock with the edit permission denied, rather than just protecting? Obviously a registered account then need only log on as its ip if they are really wanting to disrupt the page, but I guess they would do that on different pages anyway (and would give away the underlying ip in doing so). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't autoblock stop that? --Tango (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I tested it today with my alt account.--chaser - t 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Autoblock has a time limit of 24 hours (I think?). This option would normally be used for blocks of longer duration, I would hazard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't autoblock stop that? --Tango (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, in future, if an account is blocked and starts abusing the unblock request process we can unblock/reblock with the edit permission denied, rather than just protecting? Obviously a registered account then need only log on as its ip if they are really wanting to disrupt the page, but I guess they would do that on different pages anyway (and would give away the underlying ip in doing so). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with proposal. Blocking user talk page access should be on a level with full protecting a blocked user's talk page. DurovaCharge! 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although this may be obvious, I wanted to clarify it. I would presume that protection would still be used in instances where an account, through the use of socks (whether ip's or named account), was abusing unblock requests? Seddσn talk Editor Review 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- My talk page was recently "protected" - without warning - to prevent me from appealing a block, See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another false statement. It was protected due to your abuse of the {{unblock}} template, as you know perfectly well. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- JzG/ Guy: Your false accusations are becoming tiresome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Andy, please do not engage in disruption or baiting on this thread. Your situation was reviewed and resolved. Please let Wikipedia get on with its business. Further arguing is only going to cause people to lose patience with you. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I referenced a current, unresolved discussion, because it is relevant to this debate. There is no "baiting" or disruption" from me. It wasn't me who chose to use that as an excuse to start making fallacious ad hominem attacks; I suggest you address your comments to the editor who did. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Andy, please do not engage in disruption or baiting on this thread. Your situation was reviewed and resolved. Please let Wikipedia get on with its business. Further arguing is only going to cause people to lose patience with you. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- JzG/ Guy: Your false accusations are becoming tiresome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another false statement. It was protected due to your abuse of the {{unblock}} template, as you know perfectly well. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ability to block users from specific pages/namespaces likely coming
Brion reverted it (in an incomplete way at that looking at the revision where he did it). FunPika 10:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Per r41352, administrators should be able to block users from editing specific articles/namespaces the next time we are synced with SVN (unless Brion or some other dev decides to disable it on WMF projects/here specifically or revert it entirely before then, but ATM it is in SVN and enabled in the defaultsettings). FunPika 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, lordy. Here's hoping that these blocks don't become No Big Deal(tm). HiDrNick! 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's kinda' interesting. I imagine we'll find uses for them. I'm curious why this was created, though. Anyone know? lifebaka++ 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been hoping for this ability for a long time, and I've lobbied for it at WP:VPT and voted for it at Bugzilla. The most obvious use I see (and I really hope this particular method is able to be implemented) is range blocking a particular IP range from a particular article, so if there's a POV pusher or vandal focused on one article on a dynamic IP, we can range block instead of semiprotect. Everyone sharing his range isn't blocked (except for the one article), and other IP's and new accounts aren't prevented from editing the article.
- Being able to block one troublemaking account from one article isn't a bad thing; it's essentially a way of enforcing a topic ban. But it isn't my expected use of the ability. --barneca (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tested the tool on a wiki that is synced with a recent revision, and I could not use it on a range. FunPika 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bugzilla link, or details on meta/mw wiki? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- @Funpika: well, crap. --barneca (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- @FT2: Bugzilla link: [19]. I started a thread about this on either WP:VPT or WP:VPP a long time ago, and someone else replied that they had already started a similar thread months before mine, but I can't find either one now, and can't remember who had the idea first. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bugzilla link, or details on meta/mw wiki? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tested the tool on a wiki that is synced with a recent revision, and I could not use it on a range. FunPika 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's kinda' interesting. I imagine we'll find uses for them. I'm curious why this was created, though. Anyone know? lifebaka++ 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- So if someone breaks 3RR at one page but is contributing well elsewhere, that person could be blocked from that particular page while remaining free to do useful stuff? In principle I like it: a less intrusive solution is better than a full block from editing as long as the problem gets solved. What the community needs to do is work out standards in advance for when and how to apply this new tool appropriately. If we anticipate the scenarios where this would be appropriate v. not appropriate then this could roll out smoothly. DurovaCharge! 01:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- And we should be able to block some people from project space temporarily, if they are vexatious litigants or whatever. This won't be useful very often, though. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also WP:Per-article blocking. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that your link shows a consensus that was established 3 years ago. There may well be a shift in consensus now (who knows? ...) OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- One interesting question here is: when these new type blocks can be issued by a single admin, and when there should be community discussion on AN or ANI. I think the namespace bans should only follow after a wider input, as the need to use such drastic measures is potentially quite contentious (ZOMG! DRAMA!) and certainly a sign of problematic editing. – Sadalmelik ☎ 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- bugzilla:15763 filed to allow placing restrictions on IP ranges. FunPika 10:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This should be a very useful tool, and better enable blocks to be escalated. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Namespace bans should be prohibited to be issued WITHOUT consent of the community ahead of time. Per article bans should be treated like any other ban--must be justified, and the admin as with a regular ban has to be accountable for the stakes involved. Other than that, this is a good idea and overdue. This is a decent idea overall to simply and forcefully keep an otherwise fine editor out of hot soup on the topic areas that would otherwise drive him off. Some people can create works of art, but if they get into one little area of the city, they turn into raving crackheads that beat up prostitutes--keep them in the concert hall they're known for, however, and they're Chopin or Mozart. As long as any misuse of this is as critical as general bad blocks, I don't see a problem with it. However, I think any Namespace wide blocks without pre-consensus and justification should be out of line. rootology (C)(T) 13:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Considering that admins can block an editor site-wide without asking permission first at AN or ANI, why would I need to get permission first before blocking someone from a particular namespace only? This is less of a big deal than a site-wide block. Per-article and per-namespace blocks should be treated like a normal block; if I can justify it, I should just do it. If it's likely to cause drama, better to get a reality check first. The problem has actually been that admins sometimes don't get a reality check first before making a controversial site-wide block, but that's a different issue, and is not a reason to require coming here before making a non-controversial namespace block. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with Barnaca here. Rootology, what you are saying is practically the same as saying that the police should be allowed to straitjacket and shackle a criminal without asking permission, and yet they must get approval before handcuffing them. Do you really think that any admin will be able to get away with blocking someone from an article or namespace illegitimately easier than they are able to get away with an inappropriate block now? I mean, if an admin blocks someone now, all the blocked person can do is rant away on their talk page. If a block was not site-wide, the blocked person could raise hell from one end of Wikipedia to the other until his inappropriate block was lifted. J.delanoygabsadds 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, this is going to make blocking much less punitive. 3RR blocks can now be 3RR article blocks and so on - it makes much more sense than blocking somone from the project completely. We've also had issues with people in a particular namespace (such a Wikipedia) and an enforced timeout from certain areas will no doubt stop the need for a full project ban. Good work whoevers been involved in this. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds very helpful, for shared IPs along with everything else. I take it I can't see this yet in the block dialog? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Administrators' noticeboard is not a crystal ball. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me here. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- He means he thinks I should have waited until we sync with SVN, because of the stated possibility of a dev/sysadmin deciding not to enable it on WMF/enwiki or revert the feature entirely (effectively meaning there is a slight possibility of the feature never seeing the light of day here). FunPika 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me here. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- At first I liked the idea. But then I was reminded of less-lethal weapons and what the police use them for in practice. Will we soon be discussing whether admin X had the right to block editor Y from X's talk page? Are block logs going to explode now? These things can only be prevented by a very clear consensus that a selective block is a big deal – as much so as any other block. Another issue is that discussions are going to be a lot more complex in future if they are no longer just about whether/how long to block, but also about where to block. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see this as being very useful in sockpuppet cases. Any sockpuppeters I deal with have a narrow fixation. Soccermeko, for example, targets Nicole Wray and Kiki Shearer articles, and got so persistent that we have had to block a large range of IPs from editing Wikipedia at all. Now, we can let that block go, and block that range from editing only 5 articles. Brianyau323 is much the same: a good size chunk of Hong Kong would need to be blocked to stop him, but he only edits articles about the Cheetah Girls. One question for people that play with it: if you block an IP range, does it block registered editors using that range from editing the articles? If it doesn't, it won't help much with socks. If it does, it will be extremely effective.Kww (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Idea - this would work better if it were also possible to see which users (if any) had been banned from the article/project page/etc at which you're looking. Perhaps an additional tab at the top of the page listing those currently prevented from editing the page, that only appears if there is someone prevented from doing so, or something in the page log. fish&karate 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although my anticipated use of this is evidently not going to operational, I'm really warming up to the idea of this being the default option for 3RR violations. They can't disrupt the article anymore, but they can edit the talk page. Only if they move on to disrupt other articles do they get a site-wide block. Prevention rather than punishment. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think User:Barneca has really nailed this one the head with the comment above this one. This is very much in keeping with the ideals of our blocking policy. It can protect areas of conflict whilst allowing users to be contructive elsewhere if that appears to be the case. If it becomes evident a user 3RR's elsewhere then a site blcok could be then considered, if it is apprent page and namespace blocks do not work. Seddσn talk Editor Review 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also Agree in principle, but note that some edit warriors will simply start edit-warring on other articles. "I can't revert this jackass on Article X, so I'll follow him to Article Y" and so forth. I think we should be open to the idea that 3RR can still result in a full block, if violations are particularly extensive or egregious. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Incomplete list of candidates for speedy deletion
Is there a reason why most of the candidates are no longer displayed on the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page? Right now, it shows 23 of the 370 total pages. I can see some, but not all of the missing ones on Cyde's list. This is contributing to a huge backlog, since apparently admins aren't seeing the missing ones either. Or am I missing something? 75.17.12.71 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Most of them are images, which show up as links on Cyde's list, but show up as thumbnails right below the links on CAT:CSD. I think they're all there; I can certainly see them. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if I'm still missing something. It lists pages separate from media. It currently shows 26 pages out of 380 total, and 174 media files out of 250 total. Here's one example of a page I found on Cyde's list which is not on the CAT:CSD list: The redneck gourmet restaurant. 75.17.12.71 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Above the heading Pages in category "Candidates for speedy deletion" you need to click on "next 200". 220.253.179.185 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to 75.17's first post. It seems he's right; even accounting for the second page 220.253 mentions, there's still quite a few missing. This seems to imply that when server demand is high, putting pages in categories thru templates is a lower-priority task and is delayed. Maybe someone else knows better. --barneca (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Above the heading Pages in category "Candidates for speedy deletion" you need to click on "next 200". 220.253.179.185 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if I'm still missing something. It lists pages separate from media. It currently shows 26 pages out of 380 total, and 174 media files out of 250 total. Here's one example of a page I found on Cyde's list which is not on the CAT:CSD list: The redneck gourmet restaurant. 75.17.12.71 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Admins should use a Watchlist. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Barneca, thanks for the link which explains what's going on. (As for the second page, it never even occurred to me to check, since the first page displayed significantly fewer than 200 entries.) Sorry for the bother. 75.17.12.71 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Zomg Backlog
Along those lines... has anyone noticed the massive uber-backlog at CSD? The current number of Candidates for Speedy Deletion is 14, which is pretty high. Just thought I'd mention it. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is probably because I added Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to {{NowCommons}}. For quite a while, this template didn't feed in CAT:CSD because the deletion was delayed by 7 days (dated categories were used). Now CSD I8 warrants immediate deletion, and dated categories were abandoned, leading to buildup of the backlog in CAT:NC and especially CAT:NCT. Now there hopefully will be more hands to clean it up. Conscious (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. You might warn us about that in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's quite a big problem with this actually. There are images in CSD which have been uploaded to Commons under a different name and are still linked or included here under the old name. If they just get blindly deleted there will be redlinked images in articles. (And don't tell me admins are supposed to check before deleting; I know we are, but some of us don't.) Stifle (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, potentially massive problem. I've taken the category out of the template so more thought can be put into its inclusion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hooray, have a barnstar for clearing the deletion backlog :D Stifle (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not that it actually worked or anything... Can you see where the addition to the category is on {{NowCommons}}? I've obviously not actually nuked it :o( ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's working fine, just takes five or ten minutes for the category to be flushed out. See for example Image:Jim bailey entertainer and barbra streisand.jpg which was in C:SD a few minutes ago. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- More precisely, the image is still on the list at C:SD but the category doesn't appear on the page. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've put a warning on the page that admins see when deleting an image, as a second safety measure while we wait for the category to flush. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not that it actually worked or anything... Can you see where the addition to the category is on {{NowCommons}}? I've obviously not actually nuked it :o( ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hooray, have a barnstar for clearing the deletion backlog :D Stifle (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, potentially massive problem. I've taken the category out of the template so more thought can be put into its inclusion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
But Redvers has a point. Let's get rid of I8. It doesn't help this project one bit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the suggestion to include CAT:CSD in {{NowCommons}} has been cross-posted at WT:CSD, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and CAT:CSD on 23 September. With no objections, I implemented it 4 days later. I think by reverting you're just hiding your hand in the sand - the backlog of 1000 files is still there. As things stand now, only a few admins specifically interested in I8 will try to clean it, and there are not enough hands, as the backlog keeps growing. Including I8 images in CAT:CSD will allow keeping CAT:NCT under control. Conscious (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't CAT:NC previously on the list of categories to clear out on the CAT:CSD page? Stifle (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. It was removed from there by Conscious (talk · contribs). Ever feel like you've been volunteered for a job? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't CAT:NC previously on the list of categories to clear out on the CAT:CSD page? Stifle (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion and Not the Wikipedia Weekly
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Public service announcement. Every person who marks stuff for deletion and every admin who does speedy deletion should listen to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Our_latest_recorded_Skypecast (That's the 34th broadcast). In this latest adventure, a few editors try to start a new article which is a major pop song from 1906 and then it gets immediately deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Deletionism reigns supreme, anyone? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...I always thought A3 was only for cases where you really couldn't tell what the article was i.e. the "Derek Smith ran through the fields one day" types. But I guess this is why I developed the habit of checking the creation time when I do speedies. Shell babelfish 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The version of the article that was originally nominated for speedy deletion consisted of a single sentence and no sources. Also the word "rag" could mean any of several things without any context. If I'd seen that article pop up on one of my new pages patrols I'd have whacked an A1 on it and I'd have been right to do so. Reyk YO! 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point about no source being included on article creation. It's a very simple thing to remember, and I'd advocate the absence of so much as a single little source as a perfect reason for speedy deleting. Also, we could make another Skypecast, this time focusing on speedy deleting and prodding and nominating things for deletion that need to land in the digital gutter whence they came, and better quickly. Or an entire series of Skypecasts on funny "inclusionist" AfD "reasonings". Or a lecture on start articles in a userspace sandbox and only move them to article space when they are halfway developed. Everyme 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The version of the article that was originally nominated for speedy deletion consisted of a single sentence and no sources. Also the word "rag" could mean any of several things without any context. If I'd seen that article pop up on one of my new pages patrols I'd have whacked an A1 on it and I'd have been right to do so. Reyk YO! 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be "a group of editors deliberately try to start a notable article so badly so that it gets deleted and they can prove some sort of a point"? The problem is the little-known "rag", of course. If it had even been "song", I doubt if it would've been speedied. Black Kite 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say it probably wasn't deliberate. But when you fail, why not try and turn the tables and transform it into a point for yourself? Definitely worth a shot. Right on. Everyme 05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Black Kite, and Everyme, please withdraw the speculation about our intentions. There was no hidden agenda: we just wanted to get an article up to DYK level in real time. I was hoping someone else would start the page; it pretty hard to host an audio recording and start an article simultaneously. The first edit contained a statement that the piece was a written by a composer with a bluelinked name who was a leading artist in the genre, and included an edit summary that more material would be coming soon. Before the speedy tag went up I had already posted four reliable sources to the talk page. Afterward we simply uploaded the recording we had. DurovaCharge! 06:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Bluelinked name" is a bit misleading. The link goes to a disambiguation page which includes three musicians, and there isn't even an indication that the article is about a song. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my kidding was related solely to Joshuaz's posting this here. That certainly happened in an attempt to make some invalid point. Everyme 06:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you'd like to discuss deletionism and inclusionism how about naming a time that's good for you and signing up for our next recording? Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Our_next_Skypecast The background over on our side is that we've done a lot of good content work during off-hours when we weren't recording and wanted to duplicate that in an episode. The speedy deletion caught us by surprise. If this brings up issues between deletionists and inclusionists then let's see if we can find common ground. DurovaCharge! 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, now that LGRdC is retired, the whole issue of inclusionism as a serious problem has faded a bit for me. Everyme 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it wasn't done deliberately to make a point (which requires quite an effort of AGF in this context), if the article authors can't be bothered to make a decent stub then why should we care? Seriously, we are all inclusionists, if we weren't then we would not be here at all, but we have different inclusion criteria and thresholds - the debate is at the margins. It's all good. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, you do realize the article exceeded requirements for DYK before we finished the recording, right? DurovaCharge! 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but not when it was deleted. When it was deleted it was a single unsourced sentence. And when you listed sources on Talk for Hangon, you did it in a way that ensured the sources were not easily readable. If you weren't deliberately trolling for a deletion you could then bitch about, you were doing an extraordinarily good impression of it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that "foo is a song by bar" is below what many people consider a valid stub. Me, I'd have checked the bluelink for the writer and worked out that it probably was notable, but the article did actively invite deletion. And blaming people who patrol the perennial backlog at CAT:CSD is also excessively harsh, the problem is the firehose of crap more than those who seek to turn the hose away from drowning the project. This whole exercise positively reeks of WP:POINT, to the extent that it obscures whatever valid points you might actually have been making. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I listed sources on talk before the article had been tagged for deletion. We expected we'd have a few moments more to demonstrate that we were actually writing an article. Then it was gone before any of us had time to make another edit. In between my last post to AN and this one I started another new article and put it up for DYK: That International Rag. It would help morale a bit around here if those who criticize did more to help the problem: early twentieth century popular music is a very underdeveloped area. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but not when it was deleted. When it was deleted it was a single unsourced sentence. And when you listed sources on Talk for Hangon, you did it in a way that ensured the sources were not easily readable. If you weren't deliberately trolling for a deletion you could then bitch about, you were doing an extraordinarily good impression of it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that "foo is a song by bar" is below what many people consider a valid stub. Me, I'd have checked the bluelink for the writer and worked out that it probably was notable, but the article did actively invite deletion. And blaming people who patrol the perennial backlog at CAT:CSD is also excessively harsh, the problem is the firehose of crap more than those who seek to turn the hose away from drowning the project. This whole exercise positively reeks of WP:POINT, to the extent that it obscures whatever valid points you might actually have been making. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, you do realize the article exceeded requirements for DYK before we finished the recording, right? DurovaCharge! 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I really wish that editors would stay off of the speedy tags within minutes of an article being created (especially in this case, where it was started by a well-known editor who presumably would know what they were doing), but the state the article was in when deleted was pretty poor, and I can see how an admin would see it as an A3 (and this from an editor who seems to spend a great deal of his time declining mis-tagged A1, A3 and especially A7s). I don't think that Orangemike can be blamed for zapping what looked at the time like a perfectly valid A3. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
- Just a note to everyone, but this would be an ideal place to have used {{hasty}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know, the PROD template uses a timestamp to change its text, so that it authorizes deletion once 5 days have passed. Could we add such a parameter to some of the CSD templates, building a buffer into the process? Say, something that would only add the article to CAT:CSD after 10 or 15 minutes? It would limit the biting, but would still keep a speedy process moving along - and, obviously, would not be used on templates like {{db-attack}} and such. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, if something isn't an attack page (FRANK FROM BUFFALO SUCKS BUFFALO!) would it really kill anything to make it a "by-policy" requirement that you can't CSD stuff like this for like at least 15 or 30 minutes? What possible harm could that cause beyond people having to skip over the first x lines in the New Pages report and not immediately tag stuff? Scorekeeping for RC patrollers doesn't matter. I can't see the harm in giving people a few minutes. It's not like it matters if a substandard article lasts 120 seconds or 30 minutes, and most people tend to build articles by layering them up. I've actually begun not wanting to build a new article in article space because I don't want to deal with someone AFDing it blindly or CSDing after seeing all these horror stories. This article which is now up for FA was "deployed" from my user space only after I laid in enough sources so that I could actually ignore an AFD. On this one that I can get to GA once I have time, I was fortunate to just get notability tags instead of CSD/AFD after I just went and made it. And I have a clue about making articles. Obviously do does Durova--she's done FAs, I'm hopefully on the cusp, and she got bit and I nearly did, but I'm actively worried about that when making articles, especially since my stuff is generally obscure--look at my user page. Giving newbies 30 minutes is more important than giving RC patrollers a notch in a belt that doesn't matter. rootology (C)(T) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well there is the other side of the fence: new page patrol. Every few seconds, a new page is created, much of what's created in the mainspace is, to put it plainly: garbage. Pages created by kids in middle schools who really wanted to tell the world that "XYZ IS GAY!!!", pages about newly created websites that nobody has ever heard of, company/organization adverts, pages about fictional characters that made one appearance in episode X of season Y of TV serie Z, one-liner bios about some obscure religious figure, dictionary definitions, american football players in division 12 of college football, school cruft, protologisms and associated essay, copyvios of external websites, high school / myspace rock bands, vain autobios, one liners with not enough context to guess what the hell the page is supposed to be about, mispelled pages on a subject we already have an article about ... I can go on and on. Anyway, the point is, it's *hard* to keep up, and there is a lot to check, and a lot to throw away. Wikipedia lists pages as they are created and that's it. If you don't catch pages as they come, you probably never will. It's totally not practical for a new page patroller to wait half an hour while new pages keep piling up. Plus it's not just impractical, it wouldn't make a difference most of the time. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -> CSD.
- Now I'll grant you that some new page patrollers are trigger happy, but it's raining bombs out there. If people won't provide references, if they won't develop new articles in their user page as they are encouraged to do, they have themselves and the zillion other people doing the same to blame. Besides, it's not the end of the world if an article is "wrongly" tagged for speedy deletion, it can be interrupted easilly and indeed it was. Not like it was deleted and salted. If anything, it shows the process works as designed. Equendil Talk 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also non notable album/artist/band/song stubs are amongst the most common pages created, so I am really not surprised there. Equendil Talk 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunno about anyone else, but had I seen that come up as I went through on speedy patrol, I'd have been leaning towards deletion as well. When I start an article, I usually write it offline and drop it in with more than just a single line, and I thought that was how most experienced editors do it. The one-line first edit was very lacking in information, and considering that we do have guidelines about the notability of songs over at WP:MUSIC, at that point the article didn't really meet any guidelines. However, it could have been handled better, perhaps as a redirect to the artist... Anyhow, lessons to be considered: make sure your new article has a source and a little good information in it; and check the history and creator out before deleting something that looks like it has potential to be a decent article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll stretch to AGF and believe it wasn't deliberate. But if it wasn't, if you're a group of experienced editors starting a notable article, why would you start it with this? I wouldn't have speedied it, both because of who started it and the fact that songs technically can't be speedied, but you can understand someone who did. Black Kite 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The recording is self-explanatory: while I was hosting I asked three times for a volunteer to make the first edit. When no one volunteered I stepped in. Hadn't really expected to fill that role myself so in order to keep the episode moving the first edit was very short. It is nearly impossible to speak one thing while simultaneously writing something else. I knew the first post was thin and left an edit summary asking for a little patience. We wouldn't have been surprised to get a prod or an AFD, but a two minute speedy really did catch us off guard. DurovaCharge! 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- A few remarks about my intention in posting this details here: 1) the edit summary said that more was going to follow. 2) People are saying that long-term users should have known better about how to do this. My primary concern however is not in that regard but about all the cases that might occur like this every day to new users. If we are speedy deleting in this sort of circumstance, what are we doing to new users? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Joshua has a good point. NPP has really become a "race" to see who can tag it the fastest. We should not be going about deletion this way. In fact I'd like to see a rule that speedy deletion tags can't be placed for the first 10 minutes, except for attack pages, copyvio and the like. –xeno (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are giving them an incentive to RTFM and create proper stubs :D Seriously though, I can't speak for everyone obviously, but new page patrollers are not just deletion maniacs. Welcoming new Wikipedians and helping them around, fixing a brand new article, adding internal links, tagging and adding categories, saving articles from deletion, are all parts of the job. Equendil Talk 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Teaching them that if they don't make an effort to right a half decent stub, they might as well not bother? Nil Einne (talk)
- Back when I had more time and was doing NPP, many times I saw who created the page as well as what was created. I usually gave a bit more slack to an established user than I did someone who did a first time contributing. Though I got a few wrong, I always did a bit of searching on topics that were remotely plausible. Those that stank of hoax/attack/etc were flagged as such. I had a pretty good track record and got smacked on occasion. I wish more NPP had that philosophy. spryde | talk 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I totally disagree that there should be a timeframe for deleting articles and/or tagging them for deletion. One precarious, fragile facet of Wikipedia is our public perception of credibility. Having nonsense, false, or otherwise inappropriate articles up for longer than necessary only serves to further degrade our credibility. However, I agree there is a problem (although I don't agree on the scope or magnitude of the problem). I once had a discussion with another user about making CSD tagging a "rollback"-type privilege - i.e., it needs to be granted by an admin and can be taken away upon abuse. While I think this idea is a good one, I have not taken the time to discuss it with anyone else or fleshed it out at all. Any opinions? Tan | 39 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- With rollback you can demonstrate that you can be trusted with the tool by reverting vandalism without it. This wouldn't be the case with a CSD right, so it wouldn't be easy for an admin to judge that they can use it appropriately. The right to tag a page for speedy deletion can't do much damage if abused, since they can't actually delete the page, and we may end up with a situation when an editor gets the right removed after mistagging 2-3 articles (even if that's a 99.9% success rate). Hut 8.5 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- So your objections are that it would be hard for admins to perform a perfuctory review of the contribs and grant the right to users who want it, and that a user might have the right removed after a few abuses? I am either missing something, or this is flagrant beaurocracy in action. The point of my (admittedly skeletal) proposal is that we can remove the rights if pages are being tagged improperly. If what you are saying is correct, then the problem doesn't lie with NPP, but with the admins who are performing the deletion. In either case, having a delay between article creation and CSD tagging doesn't solve the problem. Tan | 39 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would love it if there was an autotemplate feature that would be at the top of every article less than X days old that was automatically applied and removed upon a given timeframe. That lets everyone know that it was just born and may not be complete. spryde | talk 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I meant. I was raising concerns about how the system will be implemented. Of course I don't think such a right should be taken away because of one or two incorrect taggs in a thousand, but if you give admins the right to take away the right to tag articles for CSD then people are going to call for this to happen if the person makes one mistake in practice. That's the main reason why there is no universal admin recall system. I was assuming that your right would be granted in a similar way to rollback (in which admins do make a brief survey of the user's contributions before granting the right). Hut 8.5 08:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- So your objections are that it would be hard for admins to perform a perfuctory review of the contribs and grant the right to users who want it, and that a user might have the right removed after a few abuses? I am either missing something, or this is flagrant beaurocracy in action. The point of my (admittedly skeletal) proposal is that we can remove the rights if pages are being tagged improperly. If what you are saying is correct, then the problem doesn't lie with NPP, but with the admins who are performing the deletion. In either case, having a delay between article creation and CSD tagging doesn't solve the problem. Tan | 39 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- With rollback you can demonstrate that you can be trusted with the tool by reverting vandalism without it. This wouldn't be the case with a CSD right, so it wouldn't be easy for an admin to judge that they can use it appropriately. The right to tag a page for speedy deletion can't do much damage if abused, since they can't actually delete the page, and we may end up with a situation when an editor gets the right removed after mistagging 2-3 articles (even if that's a 99.9% success rate). Hut 8.5 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I totally disagree that there should be a timeframe for deleting articles and/or tagging them for deletion. One precarious, fragile facet of Wikipedia is our public perception of credibility. Having nonsense, false, or otherwise inappropriate articles up for longer than necessary only serves to further degrade our credibility. However, I agree there is a problem (although I don't agree on the scope or magnitude of the problem). I once had a discussion with another user about making CSD tagging a "rollback"-type privilege - i.e., it needs to be granted by an admin and can be taken away upon abuse. While I think this idea is a good one, I have not taken the time to discuss it with anyone else or fleshed it out at all. Any opinions? Tan | 39 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the new page patrollers are more than a little overzealous, and it's frustrating to see an article get a CSD slapped on it within seconds of its creation, even with an assertion of notability. (See Jim Naugle as an example; the very first edit was a one-sentence sub-stub that provided a clear claim to notability. Within the same minute, it was tagged for CSD A7 by a new page patroller.) And as noted by others, it's appropriate to consider the creator of the article when nominating it for deletion. Mzoli's Meats is the definitive example, but Twistee Treat, which was created by steward and WMF employee User:Bastique got an unreferenced tag slapped on it a minute after creation. I think he knows the appropriate steps for creation of new articles, and the patroller who tagged it should have been trout-slapped. As I noted at my RFA, articles less than 15 minutes old won't get tagged by me; it allows the creator time to flesh out the article a bit. Not every new user understands how to use a sandbox, and I'd guess that most of them won't follow the links to find out how. Horologium (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion
I understand the pressure that new page patrollers are under: a whole lot of junk and nonsense does try to make its way into Wikipedia and if it doesn't get spotted in the first few minutes it often sits around for months. Maybe it would help relieve that pressure if we implemented a second tier for screening. Let's say there were a script that gave a report on new articles a certain number of hours old (2 hours? 24 hours?) and that screened out pages that were already prodded or AFD'd. Would that help? Aside from whether I should have started the article better (and usually I do), there's a reasonable case to be made that new editors who have valid content to contribute may be getting shut out by our current practices. RC patrol is hard to do perfectly at a site that sees as much activity as Wikipedia. Perhaps we could set up something that makes the tough job easier. DurovaCharge! 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree that apart from attack page and defamatory comments, it's not urgent or neccessary to tag new articles within one or two hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I completely disagree, as above. Hundreds[citation needed] of articles daily are created that are attack pages, vandalism, nonsense, or simply vanity pages that reduce Wikipedia's credibility. I believe that our credibility is one of our most fragile and crucial aspects. Everyone agrees blatant vandalism et al should be removed immediately. However, I think that the alarmists who believe that a huge problem exists because a (very) small percentage of "viable" articles are deleted, are painting a picture of a much larger problem than actually exists. I heartily believe that we should nurture new article writers. Treating deleted articles as baby birds that are stepped on in the front yard, however, is not the way to go about it. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis - or create a system where you are able to take away tagging rights, as I described above. Making arbitrary timelines doesn't help any problem and could potentially harm our credibility with the public. Tan | 39 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Defamatory comments can go immediately. Vandalism, nonsense, or simply vanity pages don't matter, they can wait an hour, it's no big deal, they won't damage the credibility of Wikipedia in that time anymore than they will in five minutes. The damage comes when editors - and admins - mistake a page in creation that may become a credible page, for one of these. That's extremely bad PR and damages our most valuable resource, new editors. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whoever requested a citation above, in June 2008 there were 2008 G1 deletions (nonsense pages), 883 G2s (test pages), 1520 G10s (attack pages), 3469 G11s (spam) and 1568 G12s (copyvio). That's in addition to 3398 A1s (no context) and 13406 A7s (no assertion of significance). Letting a page on a student stay up for a long period does indicate to whoever wrote the page that Wikipedia doesn't have good content control mechanisms. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. 3-6 hours should be enough, but the 15 minutes suggested further above would be meaningless. Even my worst stubs have taken at least two hours (most of which is spent perusing dismissing unusable sources). If we can convince Cyde to sort this page chronologically instead of alphabetically, half of the problem would be solved. The other half would involve trout-slapping every nimrod who habitually deletes from the wrong end. — CharlotteWebb 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was the one that mentioned 15 minutes. If an article is undergoing continuing improvements, I don't tag it. Again, I look at the contribution history of the creator when deciding whether or not to drop a CSD tag; someone with a contribution history as extensive as yours is not going to get tagged by me. People need to slow down, especially when there is nothing defamatory or blatantly incorrect. Horologium (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I already suggested a triage system for all deletions, whereby the tags get reviewed and then essentially "patrolled" as valid good-faith deletion requests based on the criteria. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, new pages are falling off the end of the unpatrolled new pages queue after having been on there for 90 days. It might be wise to actually work from the rear end of this queue, rather than do things that tend to work from the front like we're doing now. This prevents pages from going unpatrolled, and also gives people a bit of time to actually use the wiki to build a page.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Beware: This is one of the most flagrantly understated posts I have ever written. O:-)
- We have to do both. The last thing we want is attack pages hanging around for a month. Ditto articles on students. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For the record: it turns out that we are currently ineffective at *both* ends of the queue (something can't reach the tail of the queue unless someone missed it at the head of that same queue, after all.) Currently many (most?) (potential) attack pages and articles on students and etc are kept on wikipedia indefinitely. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would advocate a second tier, for the dual purposes of preserving possible articles, by removing the pressure for instant decision, and equally important as a second chance for removing the junk. When I have a chance to do a little NPP, I go 5000 unpatrolled edits back, and its amazing the amount of absolutely impossible and sometimes harmful material that gets missed. Its better than before NPP, but we need either a system of timed categories, or a second level of patrol. I can imagine dozens of ways to set this up, and anything would be better.
- What we're not going to solve that easily is admins using their own standards rather than WP policy. For example, some people do remove stubs without sources purely for lack of the source, which is not current stub policy. Some people do interpret no indication of notability as "not enough notability to pass AfD," also contrary to explicit policy. Some people do use no context as meaning not enough to make a finished article, also contrary to explicit policy. Some of the people who do that are my friends here, so I'm not being specific. . Personally, I'd favor a systematic review of all speedy deletions, and a way of reviewing or undeleting less dramatic and less personal than Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Reminder
May I remind everyone that Assume Good Faith is a policy here? Attacking us for having tried to create an article, then facing a sudden speedy deletion, because of untrue and unsubstantiated claims that we were trolling is NOT ON. I'll remind you that this wasn't brought up here by anyone involved, nor did we ask to be part of a controversy, we merely made a start while getting organised to add more. I'll also point out that there are two more parts to that broadcast that Joshua did not link:
In these, work continues. I would request a public apology. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why not draft your new article in your own sandbox, as User:JoshuaZ/my dandy new article. Then no one is likely to delete it when it is one unsourced and confusing sentence. Take a look at the latest article I created, Archie Frederick Collins, which spent time in my sandbox while I drafted it from a one sentence start, which even then said who he was and why he might be notable. By the time I moved it to mainspace, [21] it was a much better article. Why would anyone want to post the first rough draft of an article for all the world to see? Edison (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No. When we work collaboratively, we draft articles in the main namespace, and use this novel technology known as a "wiki" to edit it. Foundation issue #3 The method you are recommending does work, but is severely suboptimal, compared to actually using a wiki (it's what people used to do before the invention of wiki technology, you're basically (ab)using mediawiki as a bastardised cms). Note that after ~1 hour the NTWW article made it to DYK status. That would be a bit hard to do in your own userspace. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. The wiki model means that we contribute collaboratively, not that you're not allowed to work on your own to get an article up to snuff without every new page patroller and her/his dog (new page patrollers are notorious dog people) coming in to poke and prod it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) At least, I hope you're not assuming that people have a right to prod, csd, or afd things in the main namespace? Just in case: they don't. If it turns out that what they are doing is actually harming our mission, we can tell them to stop doing it.
- If you post unreferenced, obscure crap on the mainspace, do not be surprised if it gets tagged for speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Edison, if not with the wording ("crap" is a bit strong). If I'm working on something new, I do it either offline entirely or in a sandbox, so that when it goes live, it has references and structure and content right out of the tin. That would certainly seem to me to be a far better way of going about things than to post a substub and work it up from there in mainspace, even if it's done quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it may or may not be but people are still allowed to start articles that are not fully formed without them being deleted right away. I would suggest that the first instinct when coming across a stub should be to try and improve it and not delete it. We should be trying to improve content. For some reason people find deleting articles easier then working to expand them. That's too bad because it reduces the quality of the encyclopedia and in many cases chases new users away. RxS (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tony Fox, and Edison: This is Wikipedia. You start an article in mainspace, and it grows from a small stub to a useful article, or better yet a did you know, good article, or even a featured article. This is done by collaborative editing, using the wiki method. This is a foundation principle. If you want to go argue with the wikimedia foundation and recommend they replace mediawiki by some different cms that supports your alternate workflow, because you no longer use the wiki workflow, that's fine. The appropriate mailinglist is foundation-l.
- While you're out doing that, this right here is still Wikipedia. And while it's wikipedia, if certain subprojects (to wit: CSD) are disrupting the current wiki workflow, they must be made to stop. Alright? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Edison, if not with the wording ("crap" is a bit strong). If I'm working on something new, I do it either offline entirely or in a sandbox, so that when it goes live, it has references and structure and content right out of the tin. That would certainly seem to me to be a far better way of going about things than to post a substub and work it up from there in mainspace, even if it's done quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you post unreferenced, obscure crap on the mainspace, do not be surprised if it gets tagged for speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) At least, I hope you're not assuming that people have a right to prod, csd, or afd things in the main namespace? Just in case: they don't. If it turns out that what they are doing is actually harming our mission, we can tell them to stop doing it.
- That's ridiculous. The wiki model means that we contribute collaboratively, not that you're not allowed to work on your own to get an article up to snuff without every new page patroller and her/his dog (new page patrollers are notorious dog people) coming in to poke and prod it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No. When we work collaboratively, we draft articles in the main namespace, and use this novel technology known as a "wiki" to edit it. Foundation issue #3 The method you are recommending does work, but is severely suboptimal, compared to actually using a wiki (it's what people used to do before the invention of wiki technology, you're basically (ab)using mediawiki as a bastardised cms). Note that after ~1 hour the NTWW article made it to DYK status. That would be a bit hard to do in your own userspace. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain what was going on in the second podcast. The female is typing and announcing that now she is at 2100 characters or some such, so the article becomes a "DYK." Why would DYK be based on length rather than quality? As for the issue of how long it takes your new article to get some cachet like DYK, remember that we are not on deadline. The podcast is very obscure, as if it needed editing and organization. Edison (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- DYK requires at least 1500 characters I believe. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, at least 1500 characters and 1 source. We had 2100 characters and 6 reliable sources by the end of the episode. DurovaCharge! 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- But when the article was deleted, it met the CSD in that it was one sentence which didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Deletion endorsed based on the facts as of the time of the deletion. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh? Here's the criterion that was used: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't. That's G3, not A3. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information. DurovaCharge! 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't. That's G3, not A3. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh? Here's the criterion that was used: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- But when the article was deleted, it met the CSD in that it was one sentence which didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Deletion endorsed based on the facts as of the time of the deletion. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, at least 1500 characters and 1 source. We had 2100 characters and 6 reliable sources by the end of the episode. DurovaCharge! 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- DYK requires at least 1500 characters I believe. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Daniel how do you endorse deletion of an article that was three minutes old and not clear vandalism or attack? Had this been new editors this would have been a horriffic case of newbie biting. Nowhere does it say we expect people to write articles in the user space, and it is a reasonable expectation that they might get more than three minutes to work on it before it is deleted regardless of wether it is in the main or user space. That tagging and deletion is indefensible for a 3 minute old article. ViridaeTalk 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is entirely normal and supported by both policy and practice. An "article" in the state that this was in when first saved will be tagged and deleted pretty quickly because we're efficient at doing so. And we need to be, given the hundreds of cruddy "articles" that appear every day. Ever so often, one that could be good will be deleted, but, as here, it will be recreated better. The type of mindless inclusionism advocated in this thread harms Wikipedia slightly more than the mindless deletionism we also have. And breaching experiments - as this would seem to be - are never a Good Thing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- 3 minutes from creation to deletion for an article that isnt a blatant attack article, BLP or vandalism (ie this one) when the tag is "no content" is frankly ridiculous - theres no damn content because it was only.just.created. Nothing whatsoever is lost by leaving something liek that a few minutes to see where it goes. Nothing at all. Furthermore, calling this a breaching experiment is an exteremly bad faith characterisation and that should be retracted. This was an attempt at live article creation that was actually advertised before hand. ViridaeTalk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) ...as is undeleting it without a reason after less than 60 seconds without so much as a courtesy note to the administrator, especially given the undeleting admin ended up being a contributor to it. Given the user who created it wasn't new, there is no biting involved; an article which meets CSD can be deleted at any stage during its life, as far as I'm aware. Daniel (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take it up with the undeleting admin - thats hardly the major problem here though. The likeness to biting is because the deleting admin clearly didnt check the contribution history of the article creator - so it may well have been a new contributor they were biting. ViridaeTalk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Standard a7 by the sound of it. You can start ver short for example but if you are going to star really short you need an asertion of noteability and probably a ref.Geni 11:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't tagged as A7, it was tagged as A3 - no content. Even A7s ussually shouldnt be deleted that quickly unless they are clearly about the kid im sitting next to in my high school. 3 minutes from creation to deletion is indefensible. ViridaeTalk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very easy to defend. Speedy delete means exactly what is says on the tin. That means anything that meets the criteria can be deleted instantly. No need for taging no need to wait admins can just zap it straight of new pages if they want. There is a reason it isn't called. "wait around a bit" deletion.Geni 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- NO. "Speedy" is only by comparison to the week-long AfD and prod processes. Speedy delete does not mean "delete it as quickly as possible without taking the time to investigate whether this might be a legitimate new stub", and admins who think it does should find a less bitey use for their mops. I agree that this was a bad call; as others have already pointed out, there were four good sources in the talk page before this was even tagged for speedy. The deleting admin should have looked at them, looked at the page history which indicated a new stub with more to come, and held off on the deletion for at least the five minutes it would have taken to make the article a little more solid. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it took more than 5 minutes. CSD says that if an article meets the criteria you can delete. It doesn't say you may delete after waiting around for 5 mins.
- NO. "Speedy" is only by comparison to the week-long AfD and prod processes. Speedy delete does not mean "delete it as quickly as possible without taking the time to investigate whether this might be a legitimate new stub", and admins who think it does should find a less bitey use for their mops. I agree that this was a bad call; as others have already pointed out, there were four good sources in the talk page before this was even tagged for speedy. The deleting admin should have looked at them, looked at the page history which indicated a new stub with more to come, and held off on the deletion for at least the five minutes it would have taken to make the article a little more solid. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very easy to defend. Speedy delete means exactly what is says on the tin. That means anything that meets the criteria can be deleted instantly. No need for taging no need to wait admins can just zap it straight of new pages if they want. There is a reason it isn't called. "wait around a bit" deletion.Geni 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't tagged as A7, it was tagged as A3 - no content. Even A7s ussually shouldnt be deleted that quickly unless they are clearly about the kid im sitting next to in my high school. 3 minutes from creation to deletion is indefensible. ViridaeTalk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In a perfect world, new editors would know how to create drafts in userspace and would understand that new articles need reliable references. Unfortunately, they do not. Have the inconsiderate deletionists considered that? (I know that in this case, the editor was not new, but if this happens to an experienced editor, it happens to plenty of new editors every day.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. New editors can however see other stubs and the like. Doesn't take much to get beyond the deletion criteria. "X is a song by Y that sold a lot of copies in 1905 and is considered a landmark in ragtime sheet music" would probably get you there. Fairly easy to see that most articles have a paragraph of content and something with a paragraph of content that doesn't run into A7 will generaly be fine.Geni 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Songs are not eligible for A7, so running into A7 should not have been a concern in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- well it can probably be nailed under some kind of A1/A3 combo. Attempts to limit admins much beyond "if it looks anything like an article you can't delete it" only work to a limited extent in that they tend to result in more imaginative admins.Geni 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Songs are not eligible for A7, so running into A7 should not have been a concern in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Indentifying the problem
Solutions addressing problems that are not properly identified is a pet peeve of mine in my job as a software dev, so identifying the problem is what I'd like to do here, at least in simplified form (since we all know the broader context and because of WP:TL;DR).
- Problem :
- Potentialy good articles are occasionally tagged for speedy deletion / sent to the AfD process.
- It happens seconds or minutes after creation.
- Consequences (unwanted):
- We may be driving away new or even not so new Wikipedians.
- People get annoyed / angry / wiki-stressed.
- Causes:
- Potentialy good articles are created in main space in a shape making them eligible for deletion according to policy.
- New pages irrevocably unfit for inclusion make up for a large proportion of new pages.
- New pages are created at a fast rate making new page patrol a hurried process.
- Some new pages patrollers are over zealous.
- New pages are listed as they are created.
A solution should aim to eliminate the causes, or failing that, curb unwanted consequences. Equendil Talk 11:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- We can't eliminate cause 1 without seriously hurting the wiki spirit, which, after all, is the reason for our success. I don't think we can eliminate cause 2 without serious side-effects. I believe we don't even want to eliminate cause 3.
- Background to cause 4: I have tried some new page patrolling occasionally to see what it is like. I observed that doing something with the article (including putting deletion templates on it) gave me more satisfaction than just marking it patrolled, but was a lot of work. If you use a script that makes it easy to hand out deletion templates you get this satisfaction cheaper. I found not doing anything with an article, i.e. not even marking it as patrolled, surprisingly frustrating. As a consequence, going through the list in reverse order was an extremely frustrating experience – a series of defeats.
- We could attack causes 4 and 5 with a new link: "Mark for re-patrolling in 24 hours". This would remove the article from the queue and put it back on top after 24 hours. (Perhaps with a new link: "Mark for re-patrolling in 7 days.")
- A positive side effect would be that the complicated cases wouldn't just stay hidden in the middle of the queue for 90 days. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is *cough*slightly*cough* larger than this. We have tens of thousands of unpatrolled pages, and we know nothing about them.
- CSD is at least so ubiquitous that people have taken to creating articles in their userspace (thus removing any and all of the advantages of having a wiki in the first place), so it fails sufficiently on the false positives side to give pause.
- In the mean time we're also letting through massive amounts of pages that go unpatrolled.
I don't think we're looking at a minor problem here. Not to be alarmist or anything :-P but we're pretty much looking at the utter failure of our new page patrol and deletion system.
The problem NTWW encountered is systemic, not incidental.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also point out that the deletion was done despite of a {{holdon}} tag, an edit summary stating that more was forthcoming, and so on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- ((should this be in the next section instead?)) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Systemic bias
An issue I have been trying to raise awareness of, for a long time, is that narrow-minded deletionism worsens systemic bias. For example, Singapore-related articles are often AFDed or speedied because the trigger-happy deletionists (usually Americans) are unfamiliar with the topics and do not even try to find sources. May I suggest that they write GAs instead? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- very true. The answer is, no not AfD stub articles on factoids. Try mergism. Spend half a minute checking whether the item is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and if the stub doesn't add anything to that, redirect it. If it turns out we genuinely have nothing on the topic, slap a few tags on it and let it sit there for a while. Speedy deletion is for obviously worthless material (patent nonsense). Confused paragraphs on obscure topics in broken English aren't patent nonsense, they may turn out to be valuable article-starters on things we may have missed due to our inherent US/Anglo-centric bias. It's ok to reduce broken or rambling pages back to a stub, but it's not ok to just speedily delete them. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Generaly hit it with prod under those conditions.Geni 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perennial issue
We've been through all this before... — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- it will come up again. We cannot expect every new articles patroller to be familiar with the entire history of Wikipedia, we need to present them with clear guidelines what they should or should not do. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- The same could be said for people creating new pages, of course. We currently advise them "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." Somehow, this fails to convey the actual expectations for new articles. In the case at hand, for example, the page was created with no sources and was deleted exactly as the message suggested it would be. Moreover, Wikipedia:Your first article says that one thing to avoid is "A single sentence or only a website link".
- Maybe something like this would get more attention?
- Articles that are created without sources, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly. To avoid this, include references to reliable published sources immediately when creating a new article."
- — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that works for me too. Even regulars need to be reminded of this fairly basic requirement now and again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- So in a conflict between our processes and well-meaning new users we change the instructions given to the new users, rather than our processes? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that works for me too. Even regulars need to be reminded of this fairly basic requirement now and again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe something like this would get more attention?
This section discusses a strawman. The NTWW article provided sources. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) + diff (first edit on the talk page)
Proposed Solution
In an attempt to solve some of the concerns raised here - that speedy deletions might be premature, and that they can BITE new editors - I've drafted a possible alternative to the current Speedy Deletion process. Essentially, templates would be used to add a 30 minute (or whatever length) delay to the deletion. An article tagged for speedy deletion would not be added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion until 30 minutes had passed - giving time to assert notability, add sources, or whatever. I've drawn up the proposal at User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion, and would invite input from the community. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Context
Some sort of background statement appears to be necessary, so here's what was up. For a while now I've been doing gnome work in the popular songs articles. Overall that area is not doing well: massive amounts of noncompliance with WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHT among other problems. Sometimes well-meaning people would come along after me, remove the unreferenced tags, and create new attempted citations to IMDB, fansites, etc. When most of the subject is at that level, who can blame them for following the norm? The area needed better examples so I started creating and expanding articles. Here are some recent examples:
Along with that effort I've searched down dozens of public domain musical scores and uploaded/organized them at Commons and Wikisource. Some of them I've also spent hours restoring (even translated a tango from Spanish), and Shoemaker's Holiday has done fantastic work restoring historic recordings and creating MIDIs.
Still, early twentieth century music is an underpopulated area. This site has only 19 articles for ragtime songs--a genre that was on the top of the charts for a quarter century and is closely tied to the origins of jazz. I've searched for a foxtrot songs category by every spelling I can think of; as far as I can tell that doesn't even exist. So our goal with episode 34 was to replicate that article building in real time and maybe draw new interest to the subject. Usually I'm pretty good at starting new articles (getting close to the 50DYK medal), but even an experienced editor could get caught off guard occasionally and that's what happened here--basically a function of juggling too many balls at once.
If I had expected that speedy deletion would be a real danger of course I would have started the article differently. In the moments we started that article I supposed we'd catch a prod or maybe a regular AFD. It caught us by surprise when this happened and we did our best to take it in good humor. Ideally, I'd rather have brought the community's attention to a subject where Wikipedia actually has a shortage of articles (yes such topics exist). This was undertaken with good intentions and I hope good things grow out of it. Best wishes to all, DurovaCharge! 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment from restoring admin
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.
Example
Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks Guest9999 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was speedy deleted as a G3 candidate. There are several of what appear to be related articles, all unreferenced, all about unreleased singles/albums which can be found using Template:P.Wizard. Could someone take a look, see if any admin action is required? Guest9999 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it was deleted under A7. Right now those articles have to be listed at AFD or tagged {{subst:prod}}. There is no speedy deletion criterion for that. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth, Stifle? Apply common sense, please. Each of these "album" "articles" gives a track listing, and says "The album was never released, as he never recorded his songs"(!) All deleted as nonsense hoaxery, as is the template. fish&karate 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Be nice, please :) I've had such speedies overturned at DRV in the page. Although they weren't as hoaxish... Stifle (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, it's Monday morning - sorry! I've never seen the point in putting the albums / singles through the full deletion process. If the artist is not notable, it is impossible for their albums or singles to be notable (as if the artist does have a notable album or single, the artist becomes notable by definition). They can all, always, be safely speedied, and if anyone says otherwise, they are a lackadaisical blatherskite. fish&karate 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Did someone give you an "Obscure Word of the Day" calendar, Neil? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, it's Monday morning - sorry! I've never seen the point in putting the albums / singles through the full deletion process. If the artist is not notable, it is impossible for their albums or singles to be notable (as if the artist does have a notable album or single, the artist becomes notable by definition). They can all, always, be safely speedied, and if anyone says otherwise, they are a lackadaisical blatherskite. fish&karate 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Be nice, please :) I've had such speedies overturned at DRV in the page. Although they weren't as hoaxish... Stifle (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth, Stifle? Apply common sense, please. Each of these "album" "articles" gives a track listing, and says "The album was never released, as he never recorded his songs"(!) All deleted as nonsense hoaxery, as is the template. fish&karate 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- CSD is nonsensical. A7 specifically says, A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Corvus cornixtalk 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Slightly confused here. Is there a point to the above comment, or am I just missing it? Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- That the CSD criterion in question needs to be changed to say ...not articles on books, albums, software and so on by notable people or organisations. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The articles were unsourced and were complete garbage. We allow admins to use their discretion exactly for cases like this. Mr.Z-man 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- If they are 'blatant and obvious misinformation' then they may be speedy deleted under CSD G3: Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Even if they weren't blatant and obvious misinformation - if the artist were deleted, I'd delete them anyway (as would most admins). It is impossible under current notability guidelines for the artist's work to be notable yet the artist not. Deleting the books/albums/singles/films/whatever of deleted A7 bios is common practice. Yeah, CSD probably needs to be remedied to reflect this, in which case as Lifebaka says, WT:CSD is the place to be. fish&karate 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- If they are 'blatant and obvious misinformation' then they may be speedy deleted under CSD G3: Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Slightly confused here. Is there a point to the above comment, or am I just missing it? Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
loophole in reliable sources? Journalists should be required to declare their affiliation.
We should consider that journalist must declare their profession. The reason is that a journalist can win a potential edit dispute by simply stating their position elsewhere, other than Wikipedia.
For example, journalist X can write in the XYZ Times a fact that he wants inserted into Wikpedia. He then can insert it in Wikipedia citing XYZ Times as a reference.
For example, Jessica Yellin was a contributor to a CNN report [22] that quotes Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Theoretically, Yellin could edit Wikipedia noting that quote. It could be an obscure quote that other sources don't report. For example, I searched the BBC website and he is not mentioned. Note: I have nothing against Jessica Yellin, just chose the names at random.
When Wikipedia was small, this was probably not a problem. With Wikipedia being used more and more and more editors are joining, we should anticipate such problem. If we don't and Wikipedia gets burned, it could lose credibility.
Proposal: Journalist must identify their profession on their user page. If they use references that they are the author or contributor, they must disclose this in the article talk page or edit summary. Chergles (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- We already have WP:COI. Corvus cornixtalk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
COI is a guideline, not a policy. The COI guideline is ok but this proposal should be made a policy. Policies should cover events that could burn Wikipedia. The Essjay event is one that burned Wikipedia. Let's not make this scenario burn Wikipedia. Chergles (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- How would you propose forcing somebody to reveal their identity without violating WP:OUTING? Corvus cornixtalk 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least part of the nature of a reliable source is having editing oversight, fact checking, stuff like that. So, if all of the people who are involved with the aforementioned CNN report put something on the air, it's probably okay. Or at least, not something that we need to worry to excess about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My solution has always been simple: it's an honor system. We don't force people to reveal their affiliations, but we don't protect them either. If Editor X acts in a manner that generates an appearance of impropriety and fails to disclose the relationship voluntarily, then there is a small but nontrivial chance it will come back at them in a very big, public, and potentially career-ending way. The choice is up to the individual. DurovaCharge! 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- COI may be a guideline, but it's one that is followed very closely and only with the very occasional exception. "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted." Can you point out where Wikipedia is being compromised by the fact that this isn't a bona fide policy? I don't think so. As you stated, you are trying to take a pre-emptive move for an anticipated problem. WP:COI already protects us from this, while being flexible enough to allow interpretation and ambiguity, much like the US Constitution. This is a strength, not a weakness. Tan | 39 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've had some concerns about the Jessica Yellin article for a few days now. How can "During her coverage of the 2008 presidential election, Yellin covered key stories on Bill Clinton [2] , Sarah Palin [3] and the US economy[4]." be a career highlight? That would seem to be what she should be doing as part of her job. But my edits were reverted and I didn't feel like edit warring over it. Corvus cornixtalk 23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest disclosure: I met a member of the Yellin family 13 years ago but never Jessica. I should have chosen two of the other co-authors.
I am reasonably comfortable with letting this discussion wither. As Durova said, if there is a scandal, it is the journalist who will likely be burned. Wikipedia would get smeared for a short time. In the sneaky event that the journalist cheats and edits using their own sources, then the journalist will be sneaky enough to not disclose the self reference. This is the weakness of WP. To change WP to a non-anonymous format is as likely as --- (name an unlikely event...Yankees win the 2008 World Series, Queen abdicates citing Wikipedia addiction, etc.)
Issue closed (not really resolved)? Chergles (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be an issue, because reputable papers have some form of editing and peer review. ffm 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is a potential form of abuse. There are known facts that are difficult to find online. However, a reporter can write about it and create a reliable source. I know of court documents that show certain facts as well as findings of fact. If I were I reporter, I could write a story about it and transform a little known fact buried in a deposition into a reliable source. So reporters do have an advantage in being able to create reliable sources. In the US, federal court documents are searchable under the Pacer system but listing a search is not permitted as a citation.
- Again, I am willing to let this section become inactive (a defacto "resolved") even though the issue really hasn't been resolved. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Court transcripts are primary sources and are not accepted as reliable sources, since it's just the word of a witness, and not vetted for reliability. Corvus cornixtalk 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- They are reliable sources as to what was said in court, let's be clear about that. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is true. Corvus cornixtalk 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- They are reliable sources as to what was said in court, let's be clear about that. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Court transcripts are primary sources and are not accepted as reliable sources, since it's just the word of a witness, and not vetted for reliability. Corvus cornixtalk 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I am willing to let this section become inactive (a defacto "resolved") even though the issue really hasn't been resolved. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that, if a CNN journalist were to make something up, and it were published by CNN without adequate fact-checking, then there would be a problem with CNN. Their reputation for fact checking and accuracy would surely suffer as a result. I don't see that Wikipedia has a problem, and I certainly don't think that our policies need to change. 71.65.197.158 (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let me ask you a question. Do you honestly, really believe that an actual journalist with a professional reputation to maintain and an honest-to-God real job that brings him a paycheck, upon which he depends to pay his mortgage, make his car payments, put his kids through college, would crank out a dubious story that has no journalistic merit, just so he could use it as a source on Wikipedia? Pardon me while I try to pull myself off the floor after the laughing fit I'm about to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are safer options for non journalists. Sneak something onto the AP wire (doable if you know what you are doing). Get a paper published in a journal which is posible for non profesionals in some areas. Specialist hobbyist magazines may be professionaly or semi-proffesionaly reviewed but their articles may come from non-professionals some of whom may be wikipedia editors. Professional journalists are not the group I would be most worried about. It isn't generaly a problem though.Geni 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- As an evil pawn-of-the-rich/pinko commie scum journalist type person, though one who has only infrequently had his articles picked up by what might be considered a reliable source, I'd suggest that any pro who would publish an article and then run over here to justify its use as a reference is not a professional at all. Hopefully, whoever Guy suggests did it (below) is in a new profession, such as dog poop scooper, because they're the reason that people look at me funny when I tell them what profession I'm in. A responsible journalist would never pull something like that, far as I'm concerned. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- @Steven: Yes, and this has in fact happened. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are safer options for non journalists. Sneak something onto the AP wire (doable if you know what you are doing). Get a paper published in a journal which is posible for non profesionals in some areas. Specialist hobbyist magazines may be professionaly or semi-proffesionaly reviewed but their articles may come from non-professionals some of whom may be wikipedia editors. Professional journalists are not the group I would be most worried about. It isn't generaly a problem though.Geni 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let me ask you a question. Do you honestly, really believe that an actual journalist with a professional reputation to maintain and an honest-to-God real job that brings him a paycheck, upon which he depends to pay his mortgage, make his car payments, put his kids through college, would crank out a dubious story that has no journalistic merit, just so he could use it as a source on Wikipedia? Pardon me while I try to pull myself off the floor after the laughing fit I'm about to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This adminbot has been running, uncontroversially, on Cyde's account for about two years now, assisting with the CfD process. Most of the edits are done by the Cydebot account, and the bot switches to Cyde's admin account whenever it needs that access. This is a request for more input if necessary; if there are no outstanding concerns, I intend to approve this bot within the next 24 hours. Maxim(talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Backlog of CSD I9 or incorrect/mistake with template
Hi folks. I'm not entirely sure if there's a backlog of copyrighted image CSD's, or if I've made a mistake with the template on the image Image:WhySoSerious1.jpg. It's clearly a blatant copyvio of a Batman (or some such) promo poster and has no purpose for being on Wikipedia. I'm suspecting I've made a mistake somewhere along the line because I can't find the image in the CSD categories (though I'm not even sure I'm looking in the right place). If someone could please take a look at the template I've used it would be appreciated; if it's okay and it's just a backlog then it can wait until then (I'm *not* posting here simply to have it "fasttracked", I'm worried I've made a genuine mistake). Cheers. SMC (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed above to link to the image (you can do this using [[:LINK]] instead of [[LINK]], and it also works for categories) and deleted the image as an obvious copyvio, missing licensing information, etc. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Major template (maybe) snafu
I just saw, at the top of a page, between the page-source-talk tabs and the title f the page, a birthday message to Avril Lavigne, supposedly from the community. If this was legit, nevermind, and if it's not a template issue, oh well. Occurred at en/computer. 71.145.130.187 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's LOTS of vandalism that shows up at Wikipedia. If you can provide a link to the specific page where this message occured, we can find it an correct it. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I looked on Computer (based on the comments) and Supercomputer (based on contribs), but didn't see anything (in history, either). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I saw it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer , and it's still there for me. The contrib to supercomputer is immaterial. 71.145.130.187 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Clear your caches, folks. Template:Rh was attacked and Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) blocked the troll. WP:RBI. — Scientizzle 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Severe Checkuser Backlog
Just want to bring it to everyone's attention that Checkuser is in a severe backlog. The oldest request is from the 10th of September (almost 3 full weeks old). Admin help would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Only a handful of admins have checkuser rights though [23], it's not a standard tool. Equendil Talk 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have noticed (why aren't there more?), I am just bringing it to everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There aren't more because being granted CheckUser demands a lengthy istory as an active admin without ever attracting a coterie of grudge-bearers howling for your blood and your sysop bit, which takes a special kind of person. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so Joe Q. Editor couldn't be a checkuser? OK, kills that idea :) I just told Alison that if they ever needed extra checkusers, I would be glad to sign up to help. Ooops! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- And a good technical knowledge of IP addresses et al. ViridaeTalk 08:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- And be over 18. And have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation. And be trusted with IP data by the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- And be interested in doing a boring job that attracts nothing but crap, including real life crap, and from all sides (those who are socking, those who are found not to be socking and those who accuse others of socking). I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do that job, frankly. More power to the elbows of those who do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- And be over 18. And have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation. And be trusted with IP data by the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There aren't more because being granted CheckUser demands a lengthy istory as an active admin without ever attracting a coterie of grudge-bearers howling for your blood and your sysop bit, which takes a special kind of person. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have noticed (why aren't there more?), I am just bringing it to everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There should be several new eager checkusers soon (see WP:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008), fighting with each other for the chance of using those Confirmed and CheckUser is not magic pixie dust templates. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Myself and User:YellowMonkey spent a bunch of hours over there tonight, and cleared a lot of the backlog. Yes, the job is sucky and thankless. Vandals will hate you and wreak havoc on your userpage. And that's the good stuff :) I'll do some more in the morning - it's 3am here now - Alison ❤ 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Confirmed that Alison and Yellowmonkey are saintly people doing a thankless job on a pay scale even Wal-Mart would be ashamed of. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Let's give them a 20% raise! Protonk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- What? Checkuser is magic pixie dust. I'm sure of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I represent the Lollipop Guild, and we thank Wikipedia's checkusers for the invaluable job they do, and do well. (How they keep their cool is beyond me.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- What? Checkuser is magic pixie dust. I'm sure of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. Let's give them a 20% raise! Protonk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Confirmed that Alison and Yellowmonkey are saintly people doing a thankless job on a pay scale even Wal-Mart would be ashamed of. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
ITN invitation
I would like to invite you to help me a bit with the ITN section. The system for nominating and posting new items on the Main page (WP:ITN/C) has been worked on during the last months so all it needs is some more people to participate in discussions. And a couple of admins more to ensure the good items get to the Main page soon enough. I can't do this all alone. Appreciated. --Tone 08:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll help where I can. fish&karate 10:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help - Just wanted to know why ITN doesn't have a similar system of 'consistent recognition' as say, DYK, for those that created/expanded the articles that landed in the ITN section on the main page? Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Recognition - {this may act as an incentive for more editors to create ITN related articles}.
- Just an idea --Flewis(talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This thing exists. We have a "souvenir" box for the user talkpage and one for the article's talk. It looks like this:
The article parameter must be defined. Usage of this template has recently changed; please see Template:ITN notice for details. and
--Tone 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why isn't it handed out consistently then>? --Flewis(talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is run by humans, and that species are not renowned for their consistency. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) We can make it consistent. There are some details though. What users should get the box? The one nominating it, the ones participating in the discussion, the user(s) who expanded the article, all of them...? At least article talks have recently been updated, thanks to Spencer mostly. In any case, not enough people to handle it all (for example, I don't consider those boxes a very important part of the process myself but if we decide that's what we use, we'll do it.)--Tone 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- e/c I'm probably the one that hands out the most recognition...on all the article talk pages and to the nominators. However, the updates themselves tend to be along many people, so I try to get everyone I can. SpencerT♦C 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest at least 3 per article: Nominators, Creators, Significant contributions. If this task seems a little tedious or overwhelming, I'd be happy to help out --Flewis(talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Which is what I try to do. I can get the nominators and the talk pages of the articles. However, sometimes page creators who create a single sentence stub, compared to someone who adds 5 paragraphs of information: The latter should get the recognition. However, I try to hand them out as liberally as possible. SpencerT♦C 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the only reason you're participating in a process is to receive a little token on your talk page, you're contributing to the wrong project (directed at nobody in particular). I once updated the always late WP:DYK, only to get a message on my talk page and in my email, demanding an explanaition for why I didn't send out the little token templates; I was also told I simply shouldn't update DYK if I'm "too lazy" to send out the token templates. Guess what? Never updated that again. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest at least 3 per article: Nominators, Creators, Significant contributions. If this task seems a little tedious or overwhelming, I'd be happy to help out --Flewis(talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- e/c I'm probably the one that hands out the most recognition...on all the article talk pages and to the nominators. However, the updates themselves tend to be along many people, so I try to get everyone I can. SpencerT♦C 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) We can make it consistent. There are some details though. What users should get the box? The one nominating it, the ones participating in the discussion, the user(s) who expanded the article, all of them...? At least article talks have recently been updated, thanks to Spencer mostly. In any case, not enough people to handle it all (for example, I don't consider those boxes a very important part of the process myself but if we decide that's what we use, we'll do it.)--Tone 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is run by humans, and that species are not renowned for their consistency. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why isn't it handed out consistently then>? --Flewis(talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent). I've always contributed to ITN without ever expecting to receive these recognition templates. Since I'm the only on that really gives them, I don't give them to myself, but still keep a personal count of what I've done.
Another comment: We need more administrator attention in general to ITN. There's ususally items waiting to be posted (or fixed/removed/etc.), and though User:Tone (especially) has done an amazing job keeping up with the items, we need more to contribute. So if anyone cares to join, please, I encourage you to. SpencerT♦C 21:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
At the behest of User:Sceptre
Sceptre (currently blocked) requests full page protection of his talk page citing harassment by anonymous trolls and SPAs. I am relaying this request to the noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't you an admin? John Reaves 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bit rusty on the policies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Headlessness will do that to you.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bit rusty on the policies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Something odd happening with this page
I hope this is the right place to post this. If not, I apologize. Anyways, I was looking at this page: Image:Logo del m19.gif, which clearly exists, but the tabs across the top act as if the page did not exist. Basically, I see "create this page" and no "history" tab. Maybe an administrator could fix it, or explain what's wrong? Thanks, Colombiano21 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is because it's a Commons image. It doesn't exist here on Wikipedia, but since it exists on Commons, it shows up when you put the name in (kind of automatically links the image). Shereth 23:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. There's a link to the Commons page in the template right below the image, if you need to see a history or add something to the file description. --barneca (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see, interesting. Thanks. Colombiano21 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. There's a link to the Commons page in the template right below the image, if you need to see a history or add something to the file description. --barneca (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We could really use more voters and nominatoirs here. Featuured Sound Candiates is a Featured Content project that a lot of work has gone into drawing into relevancy, but it's a type of content that Wikipedia has not, traditionally, done very much with, and so is still building the necessary community.
Expertise is *not* necessary to vote or nominate, interest is all that is needed. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be at Commons? (Of course featured image candidates probably should too, but I suspect that was created before Commons existed.) --NE2 23:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)