Line 882: | Line 882: | ||
This is all very interesting from an academic perspective but what are we supposed to so? Voting blocs exist and always will. So? Aside from some wild speculations about checking who sent what emails to whom there is nothing that can be done at this point except to continue squandering elections. I voted for John but I really don't see anything remotely actionable. [[User:JodyB|'''JodyB''']]<sub>[[User talk:JodyB| <font color="red">talk</font>]]</sub> 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) |
This is all very interesting from an academic perspective but what are we supposed to so? Voting blocs exist and always will. So? Aside from some wild speculations about checking who sent what emails to whom there is nothing that can be done at this point except to continue squandering elections. I voted for John but I really don't see anything remotely actionable. [[User:JodyB|'''JodyB''']]<sub>[[User talk:JodyB| <font color="red">talk</font>]]</sub> 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
:"What are we supposed to do?" Probably not a lot. Maybe we could add the ACE equivalent of those anti-canvassing templates you sometimes see on RfAs. "Ethnic blocs" usually counterbalance each other in elections, so you'd expect a load of Azeri/Turkic editors to turn up and give John the thumbs-up just to spite the Armenians and the Persians. So far, they haven't. Maybe there's been a power failure in [[Baku]] and [[Tabriz]] or maybe John isn't quite the secret pro-Azeri agent he's alleged to be. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Hersfold non-admin|Hersfold Non-Admin]] & Co. == |
== [[User:Hersfold non-admin|Hersfold Non-Admin]] & Co. == |
Revision as of 15:57, 4 December 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
|
Admin deletes article per Scottish police
Secret account 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article Peter Tobin has been deleted by an admin named User:AlisonW, replaced with content that says:
On the talk page, she says that this was due to being contacted by the Scottish police, but I think this needs review. This fellow appears to be an already notable convicted rapist and killer--see Angelika Kluk murder case and this BBC article on Tobin. At the least, there should be consensus or OTRS decision making for this, not some unilateral kind of thing. Is there support for this? Leaving a note on the Tobin talk page and on AlisonW's talk. rootology (C)(T) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Alison is listed as a contact (see wmf:Press room#Official chapters). So with this information, I'd of course assume that there is some legitimate reason for this and to leave it pending discussion with her. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This situation raises a host of profoundly important issues and calls for further guidance from the Office both as to how to proceed now regarding this specific article and also as to how official or quasi-official requests for restraint of our content should be handled in general. I am confident that AlisonW used her best good-faith judgment when confronted with what was presented to her as an emergency situation, at a time when she was not able to consult with others or to evaluate all of the information being laid before her. Given the action already taken, the page should be left as temporarily deleted pending input from the Office (or the Office's declining to provide such input). Under all the circumstances, on my authority as an administrator I direct that this BLP article not be restored pending the Office's input (or its confirmed declination to provide such input). See if necessary, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. This does not represent any determination by me as to the merits of the deletion, a comment on any legal issue, or a finding that any BLP issue is or is not actually raised by the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that some non-UK editors are taking this "personally". Granted, Wikipedia's servers are outside of the jurisdiction of Scottish law, but the ability of people in Scotland and the rest of the UK to view Wikipedia cannot be disputed. This is something of an exceptional set of circumstances, but it seems that there has been a very real danger that the court case currently under way could have been prejudiced by whatever was on the Wikipedia page for the defendent. For the trial to be halted on that basis would do incalculable harm to the standing of Wikipedia in the UK, which could manifest itself in ways that would have serious consequences for UK-based editors. I would note that the trial in question is now in its final stages, and we may very well have a verdict by the end of the week. Is it too much to ask to have a little patience? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
which could manifest itself in ways that would have serious consequences for UK-based editors. in what way? I've never heard anything so silly - what applies beyond the normal law of the land for UK based editors which have long been understand by long-term editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd keep this thread targeted on the single article. There is clearly no consensus to restore for now. I think clarification from WmF is needed. AlisonW is clearly acting in good faith and to help the project, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec x lots)Basically, at least from what I understand, it all comes down to this. Alison was informed, by a person who appears to be legit, that should the Wikipedia article on Peter Tobin was removed, there was a strong chance his trial would be thrown out, presumably with the implication that he would be freed, whether we now know that to be true or not is irrelevant. So now we come down to Alison's choice, on the one hand, she can ignore it and leave up a mostly insignificant article on a website which people take far too seriously, or alternatively, she can temporarily delete the article so that it doesn't result in a man who it would appear is a very very dangerous rapist and murderer, however small that possibility may be. Now answer me this, all you people arguing that Alison was out of line, if you were faced with the same choice, the reliable contact told you that you had to make a decision on the spot and you were unable to contact the foundation, what would you do? Alison made a decision based on the information available to her at the time, and I believe she should be commended for it--Jac16888 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree w/ NYB that this was a good faith action carried out by AllisonW. However, no portion of the deletion log nor the history of the page states that this was an action taken on behalf of the foundation (either expressly or implied). If WMF decides to accede to scottish law they can do so officially (or at least someone can state as much in the log). Until that time we should see if there is a consensus to undelete and restore the material. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no fundamental problem with Alison acting cautiously in the face of direct contact from Scottish authorities, though I do think it would have been better if this had been announced at the time and more plainly directed to the WMF for final disposition. Moving beyond the specifics of this case, can anyone comment intelligently of the principle of sub judice? I would have assumed that the UK doesn't routinely declare mistrials in the face of things stated in the foreign press. Do they contact the NYTimes to take down articles? It all seems very weird. The only thing that might make sense is if the article's content had actually been influenced/edited directly by parties to the case? Aside from something like that, it is difficult for me to see why a Scottish court would consider a Wikipedia article's content as having special bearing on the case. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One thing I must make explicitly clear is that I took this decision on my own and on its merits. It was not taken on behalf of what the Wikimedia Foundation, nor Wikimedia UK, might have considered the 'right' thing to do (indeed, to do so would open legal avenues we do not wish opened) This was my decision though I believed I made it on behalf of the WP community (and, indeed, with the recollection of the events User:Iridescent refers to above). In his reply to me Mike (WMF Lawyer) was explicit that the Foundation would take no position on this as it is/was a matter for the project. I agree with this. --AlisonW (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Further, the request was *passed on to me by the Police* from the Court, not *made* by the Police. --AlisonW (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Then this is over - there is *nothing* stopping any editor editing that article as long as it is sourced material and complies with normal policies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RestoredI've restored the page and unprotected it. It's not a WMF action and consensus is relatively clear here. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RedeletedNow deleted again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absurd. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If this is recreated, please do not restore it in the state it was deleted. I just removed several paragraphs of poorly-referenced content from the most recent version (Protonk's restoration). This needs to be built up from scratch with every single claim referenced to a reliable source. A noindexed sandbox would be best. Regards, Skomorokh 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Intentional 'Straw Man' argument: How do we (general editorship / readership) know that the person(s) pushing for undeletion are not working on behalf of the defendant in this case and will now seek to have the case thrown out on the grounds that this 'prior acts' information is now public? Clearly, the answer we hope for is that it is not the case, but to what evidence? --AlisonW (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For crying out loud, stop voting - this isn't a matter to be decided by the community. For what it's worth, I agree with AlisonW's actions here. As an admin, I'm able to view deleted edits, and I've also had some personal and professional involvement with sub judice issues (IANAL). Some of the material that was in the article was, IMO, clearly prejudicial. While it's not difficult to pull that material together through Googling, Wikipedia's unique advantage (and vulnerability in this case) is that we provided all the information in one place. Scott Mac has it exactly right: we have a responsibility to do no harm, not only to individuals, but society as a whole. There's no pressing reason for us to have this article available in the short term. The trial appears to be about to conclude; waiting a week or so for the verdict will not harm anyone. We've been advised that having the article available will risk serious harm. If the trial gets tossed because of our actions, we will be in a very deep hole indeed; it will cause very serious harm to Wikipedia's reputation. Accordingly, I've re-deleted the article and fully protected it until the WMF's legal counsel has had the chance to advise us on this situation. A legal issue has been raised, an article has been removed on the grounds of a serious and apparently well-founded legal concern, and the disposition of that article is something that will have to be decided by the WMF - not by a baying mob on the admin's noticeboard. Just please wait until (a) counsel has advised us or (b) the case finishes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If the administration of Scottish law is irretrievably encumbered by the existence of WP, I fail to see why it must be WP that changes. If we accede to the demands of Scottish jurisprudence in the name of expedience, then why not to those of Singapore, or Saudi Arabia? Ronnotel (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) A few thoughts. I am concerned that this issue is being framed above as a purely legal matter. Saying WP:NOTCENSORED and "It's not forbidden by U.S. courts" has never been a sufficient argument for inclusion of content in Wikipedia. This matter touches on a number of facets of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and philosophy. We have serious questions here pertaining to the ethics of posting this material at this time, and shouldn't be trying to rush this question to a conclusion. We have a good-faith request (apparently) from the courts of a fellow common law nation. Is Scots law different from U.S. law? Yep. Is that a reason to treat polite requests with contempt? I don't believe so. In order to (hopefully) ensure the fair trial of a man charged with serious, abhorrent crimes, we've been asked to hold off on publishing our article until the verdict is rendered. This is not the permanent removal of the information from Wikipedia, nor a demand to whitewash an article, nor an attempt to distort the public record. It is a step being taken to try to avoid tainting a jury — period. If we go ahead with undeleting this article now, we face several risks. The most serious is that we interfere with an ongoing trial, possibly preventing a serious criminal from being convicted. From a selfish standpoint, Wikipedia risks being blamed for such an occurrence. Even in the event that the trial ends successfully, we still look terrible. The cost to Wikipedia of complying with this request is that the article remains deleted for about a week. I'm willing to pay that price — not because we are under a legal compulsion to do so, but because it's the right thing to do. On Wikipedia we have WP:POINT, wherein our editors are advised to avoid doing destructive, counterproductive things solely to make a point. Surely some similar principle ought to apply in our interactions with the 'real world'. I acknowledge that this approach means we will need to look at similar cases in the future on a case-by-case basis, as I don't think that there's an easy answer in these matters. I will say, however, that I think the strawman arguments about compliance with Sharia law are absurd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
UnprotectedThanks to Cameron et al for the feedback. I've unprotected the page. I'm not going to restore it myself because of the legal issues, but if another administrator wishes to do so then I have no objection. But I would strongly advise any UK editors not to try editing it before the case ends! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please restoreCan someone not beholden to UK law please restore? Why have we not restored the previous content? Whats the point of starting the article over from scratch and tossing all the prior work and sourcing? rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - RfCThis is a complex issue and we've already got a long thread here in a few hours, with much repetition. I'm wondering whether a Community Requests for Comment might be a better way of ordering this and setting down facts and views. Whatever is decided here is likely to be quoted as a precedent one way or the other. UK editors are likely to be logging on soon, so I'm guessing we've a lot more to talk about here. What say you? (It is also a matter for non-admins too, so the admins' noticeboard might not be best.) How about taking this to RfC. Alison can put here case, and others their's will less repetition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What went wrongIt seems to me that what went wrong here wasn't the deletion - an admin was contacted regarding a possible legal issue and made a temporary deletion to deal with the problem while waiting for a response from the WMF general counsel. That seems completely correct to me. The mistake was that, after Mike had said it was a community matter, the matter wasn't brought before the community. We should have had this discussion 4 weeks ago over at AFD (the article could have stayed deleted during the AFD, it's a little unusual, but I don't think it's unprecedented). A temporary deletion was fine, a deletion for a month before there was any discussion was not. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't 'delete it pending a response from Mike', I advised him that I had done so as I made the temporary deletion but I did not ask for a formal response from him as the Foundation lawyer. Indeed as WP is a product of those who edit it and *not* the legal responsibility of the Foundation per se (who only host the service) it would have been very wrong to do so. Similarly I - as a WMF contact in the UK - was approached on behalf of the court and, after advising them that WMF/WMUK could not take any action on an 'official' basis for legal reasons I - as an individual editor and administrator - could review the article and choose to prune it severely so as to not impact the court case or stop it proceeding. Upon inspection I found there was so much information about the past history of this individual (no BLP issues; all well-sourced) that there would be minimal article remaining if I were to remove the past activities information (ie that which UK - both England and Scotland - have the problem with). As such, deletion for the duration of the trial appeared to be the logical and sensible conclusion and that is what I did. Note for Americans (et al) is that juries are not sequestered here except once they have been sent by the judge to consider their verdict, ie only after all the presentation of evidence. --AlisonW (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What Jimbo has just said" I strongly recommend against restoring the article hastily." [4] I think at least it needs full protection now. The article was restored in quite a rush, there was no need for such speed. dougweller (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protectedI have semi-protected the article for one month. From my perspective as a completely uninvolved admin, this is how I see the situation. We had an apparently poorly-sourced article about a defendent, and it was so poorly sourced that it almost caused a case against him to be thrown out because of the possibility of prejudicing the jury. Until consensus can be reached on what to do with it, I think it's incumbent upon us to take whatever measures we can to prevent prejudicing a jury--something which judges and law enforcement are very skittish about. It's sad that it takes a court case to reveal BLP issues. Blueboy96 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have an interest in this matter as, when I was doing my masters, I lived next to the high court of the justiciary and I used to attend the Angelika Gluk court case. Anyways, that aside, JW's comments are wise and I'm baffled people decided to act so quickly on this thing. Just weigh up the potential harm gained every second the article is not visible to non-admins versus the potential, if unlikely, alternatives. The Scottish police of course, acting on their own, do not have the authority to permanently remove content from an internet encyclopedia based in servers in Scotland let alone in Florida, but that's neither here nor there in the short term. Given Alison's lack of competence (and this is the WF fault for being disorganized) she acted, as we want our kids to act when they hear fire alarms, on the side of caution. And yes, it would have been helpful if Alison had indicated her position as normal admins should feel safe doing their jobs without wondering if there's some secret WF issue (yes, I read "It was not taken on behalf of what the Wikimedia Foundation", but that should have been stated also if you can be found by other admins as a WF contact). There should be no problems restoring this article ... though obviously the verifiability of most of its assertions will probably be stricter now and its size probably cut down. A Scottish WF, for interest, and any wiki editor based here, would not likely be vulnerable to any legal action as long as there was a reasonable attempt to ensure that any potentially damaging information was true. That's of course a different matter from the moral issue of prejudicing a jury. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One question I have not seen addressed--what is the current status of the case? I can see possible removal for a day or so during a trial, but if a country has a policy of blocking news for weeks or months or years unti ;lfinal decision of a case, that amounts to censorship, and we do not do that or we forfeit our creditability. I therefore propose the following policy: Requests for removal of information during an ongoing legal case should be referred to the foundation. if they do not choose to take action, we do not remove material, but we do make sure our own BLP policy is enforced strictly. DGG (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Zimbabwe also has sub judice laws - if we get contacted are we going to stub articles around individuals that in court there? There are a whole raft of questions. Can anyone/someone kick off a discussion in a suitable place because I don't think that we are going to settle them all here in this AN thread. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For my part, I think the article should have been deleted and immediately recreated as a stub, not just deleted outright. Blueboy96 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) BLP discussionI've started a general discussion of the principles raised by this case at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Current_legal_cases. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Summary of discussionSince this is a long discussion, for the sake of those arriving late to the discussion I'm writing a brief summary. Feel free to edit. Dcoetzee 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Peter Tobin, the accused in the Vicky Hamilton murder case in Dundee, Scotland, is currently being prosecuted in a trial by jury. The article Peter Tobin was temporarily deleted by an admin named User:AlisonW after being contacted by the Scottish police, who were concerned that the information presented in this article was likely to taint the jury and lead to the case being thrown out in the near future, because it discussed Peter Tobin's inadmissable prior crimes. Although she is a United Kingdom press contact and OTRS agent for the Wikimedia Foundation, WMF explicitly takes no position on the action and she deleted the article of her own accord. Users supporting the deletion believe that we have a moral obligation to avoid tainting jurors; that causing a mistrial could have a negative impact on public relations and possibly incur sanctions for contempt of court; and that the temporary nature of the deletion makes it tolerable. Users opposing the deletion view it as an act of censorship that sets a negative precedent, and believe that no information should be in the article that is not already available elsewhere online. The article was restored based on this discussion as a protected stub, with any prejudicial material removed. There is general agreement that any concerns should be based on the current state of the article, rather than fear of what might be added; and that the issue will be moot when the case wraps up in the next few days.
Given that the protection template on the article links to this very discussion, I'm wondering what the point of the stubbing was. 86.44.21.140 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Re: Doing no harm, what harm are we talking about? There is no evidence that Scottish court proceedings can be prejudiced by foreign websites, other than the assertions of a police officer. It seems to be the consensus that the police officer was simply wrong. If such a 'loophole' exists, then the possibility exists that a future case may be thrown out. Peter Tobin is already in jail for the rest of his life so I assert that it is better that this trial goes awry and lessons are learned/laws changed rather than a future case where the verdict has a real effect on the freedom of a defendant. The act of deleting the article may in a way have caused harm by helping to sweep what may be an important issue under the rug. 81.133.232.215 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) This is one of the more asinine cases of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia. The argument has been made that well sourced, highly encyclopedic and NPOV material about a notable individual should be removed from Wikipedia because members of a jury in Scotland might read it and their reading it might render a fair trial of the subject impossible. I have served on a jury, in the U.S., in a felony trial. The jury was not sequestered. The judge did not find it necessary to forbid all the newspapers from publishing information about the accused. He just instructed the jury to refrain from reading press accounts, or from discussing the case with others, or from going to the crime scene and trying to be a Crime Scene Investigator. Are judges in Scotland unable to instruct the jurors not to read up on the defendant in Wikipedia? Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the laws of Scotland, and any well referenced NPOV material consistent with WP:BLP should be left in the article regardless of the demands of the legal system somewhere else in the world. Should a court in Iran, China or North Korea be able to censor the content of Wikipedia like this censorship by a Scottish court? I think not. If a juror somewhere in the world informs the judge that he is unable to resist reading up on the case in a foreign source such as Wikipedia, the juror should be dismissed and punished, and replaced by an alternate willing to respect the orders of the judge. Edison (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
UnprotectSince it isn't a foundation issue, as was assumed when it was last fully protected, and we have decided not to delete it, can we get a consensus to unprotect this page. I don't think the position that content allowed by our BLP policy should be removed from the article--this represents some interpretation of BLP that I am wholly unfamiliar with. Further, the current article represents far less than can (or should) be summarized from emminently reliable sources as well as far less info than exists about the subject on other articles (e.g. articles on the various crimes he has or is alleged to have committed). As for the "no rush/no deadline" argument...sure. We aren't in a rush. And there is no deadline. But if there was no consensus to remove the material in the first place, nor any policy (or foundation direction) directing such a removal, replacing the content isn't a "rush" or a push to "finish" the article. Replacing the content is ensuring that we aren't actively making the mistake of offloading editorial decisions to judicial systems which have no legal authority over wikipedia. It is much less "getting it right" than it is "making sure we aren't getting it wrong". So what do we say? Unprotect and edit this article just as we would any other BLP? Protonk (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ConvictedTobin's conviction has now been announced on BBC News 24. May we get this article back to normal? There's only one sentence he will receive, and the jury has no say at all in that. --Rodhullandemu 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The "protocol" should be NOT to delete such an article in the future unless legal process requires it, since only well referenced information should be in such an articlem, and an over-curious computer-literate juror can simpley find the sources via Google News search. It should be up to the judge to instruct the juror not to be an independent investigator, but rather to judge the accused based only on the evidence and testimony presented in court. This episode of excessive censorship was silly and detrimental to the project. Edison (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Here's the $64,000 questionHe's got another trial for another murder coming up (unless I've missed a news report somewhere) - are we going to be blanking it again or are we going to wait for our instructions from the crown ? Shall we sort that out now or shall we all edit war and war wheel when the time comes? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, it's not the point, it's the principle. I keep hearing "They asked nicely" and "We'd get bad press in the UK if we don't" and "It's only temporary". All of these are true statements which still ignore the much more important fundamental issue at hand: whether consensus supports voluntary extra-judicial abrogation of WP:CENSOR when dealing with WP:BLP issues, and if so, in what circumstances. If this is the case, then both policies need to be rewritten to reflect it, because the decision to voluntarily self-censor a BLP at the request of a non-US government agency, while supported by a limited consensus, is a Project-wide issue that currently is NOT supported by either policy (and indeed, seems to fly directly in the face of both the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR). In the face of colossal and violent opposition, we were willing to literally risk rioting and bloodshed in the streets of the Arab world to uphold WP:CENSOR in the Depictions of Mohammed case, on a page that was getting half a million hits a month and international news coverage. It would have been just a tiny, tiny change to the article, and would have cost us essentially nothing, and all the furor would have stopped. But we held firm. I feel like it was one of our proudest hours and did a lot to prove to people we were a real, neutral Encyclopedia. It makes me sad to see how far we've fallen in the interest of public relations. We may as well call the Scotland National Police and see if they want to buy some advertising space. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
|
- Discussion continued at WP talk:BLP
Everyme
Just noticed my block has been reset and extended to two months for block evasion following this discussion. Unfortunately, I yielded no response to this comment. What can I say? Of course I'm ignoring the rules when it comes to doing minor mainspace edits, and why wouldn't I contact friendly people I have had positive contact with in the past, like Privatemusings or Casliber? So, what's the score here? My block is reset and more than doubled in duration for harmless contacting wikifriends (oh how I despise that term, but it's somewhat true in the cases of e.g. PM and Cas) and apparently also for stuff like this (or e.g. [7], [8], [9]). Could someone please introduce some sanity, or at least honesty? Make it indef rather than two months. Two months is designed to drive me away for good anyway, which will eventually happen, but entirely on my own terms (namely when I finally manage to curb my obsession with things like messed-up formatting and other inaccuracies). I fully intend to continue doing such minor mainspace edits where necessary and I may occasionally contact old "acquaintances", too. If that's unacceptable, then Wikipedia and me will have to agree to disagree. But please at least make it official in that case. Again: I do fully intend to continue evading that block with minor mainspace edits and the occasional comment or question on some friendly users' talk pages. Please do not remove this as trolling. I feel this is a legitimate request for clarification from admins. If nothing else, please at least give me some clarity and officially declare the quoted edits as unacceptable to the tune of extending a block from three weeks to two months. Also, please take into consideration that I'm having a hard time not editing when I see an obvious minor error, not asking a pal when I have a question or contact them in response when there is something noteworthy (or just plain funny) going on. I don't feel I've done any wrong with the edits -- other than evading my block, which in turn shouldn't be a self-serving institution with no need for checks and balances and some sanity. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Block evading to complain about your block being reset for er block evading???? Frankly I'm tempted to extend it again. Have you never heard of the unblock template? Don't reply here, Use your talk pageSpartaz Humbug! 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not asking to be unblocked. And the catch-22-type irony which you comment on is inherent in Wikipedia, not in my decision to post this thread. 78.34.134.4 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- A block means you're not supposed to edit, period, until the block has ended. Not "you're not supposed to edit except to fix minor formatting issues and to chat with friends." This is like telling a child "you're grounded except for playtime, birthday parties, and to go to the movies with your buddies." Any other admin who wants to extend this block has my full support.GJC 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, to me it seems more like saying "you're grounded, and no TV, and no phone, and no doing your homework and no helping with the chores. " 78.34.134.4 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's an odd analogy, because Wikipedia isn't a job. I'm going to reset the block and block the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- What would the collateral damage be on a rangeblock? I'm clueless about how to calculate such things.GJC 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you very much, Ryulong. I for one do indeed see work on Wikipedia as a volunteer job, and I will certainly continue to ignore all rules that keep me from improving it. As I said: Go indef if you honestly believe the little edits I'm still making are (intentionally or otherwise) harmful. You know, that's what blocks are supposed to do: Protect Wikipedia against harm. But that's not what you guys appear to be interested in. It seems you are more interested in demonstrating the power of the system, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. So sad. 78.34.149.223 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, this IP is blocked for three months as well. At this point you should have realized that you are not to edit the English Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Suit yourself while I continue to ignore all rules that prevent me from improving Wikipedia. Two months and a week now (in addition to the original three weeks) for "block evasion" with the intent ... to make minor edits and some harmless talk page comments. It's not even supposed to make sense, is it? 78.34.144.149 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense. Let's go for another analogy: If you were a volunteer in, say, St. John Amulance, and you were suspended for improper conduct, would you expect to continue being allowed to attend duties and treat people? Of course not, same applies here. TalkIslander 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Two words: Make me. Also, the ambulance doesn't allow anyone in without even registering, that's where the analogy ends. And you have to receive formal education and pass exams to work there, too, especially if you want to work in the administration. On a more (or less) humorous note, I wonder if my block will be reset/extended if I stop editing anything but mainspace. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if Everyme's block was extended to indef? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I have been saying from the start, by all means please do it. 78.34.151.162 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seicer, if you are reasonably certain that the IP is indeed Everyme and not someone acting like him (I have no opinion, I have not followed the history of it), then by all means, change it to indef. Fram (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that is def Everyme, I support the ban if it matters. MBisanz talk 13:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the user pages that Everyme redirected to User:Everyme, hasn't he already had a number of indef blocks? Grsz11 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This was explained to me some time back, but I still didn't quite understand it. Is Everyme blocked or banned? It sounds to me like he was blocked, yet the same blanket rules applied to banned users applied to him (e.g. no edits whatsoever). So really, what's the difference, in his case? I'm struggling to see any difference between a block and a ban. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Block="Nobody has unblocked him yet"
- Ban="Nobody would be willing to unblock him".
- It's a question of semantics more than anything else. – iridescent 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Blocked" means that they have been prevented, in the system itself, from editing Wikipedia. "Banned" means that the community has decided the editor should not be editing; this can be "topic banned" meaning they should not edit articles about a certain subject, or "site banned" meaning they are no longer supposed to edit Wikipedia at all. Site bans are typically enforced by blocking the editor in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what we do, we know that he probably already has another account that he's already using---only this time we won't know it's him. Personally, there is an old adage about the devil you know vs the devil you don't know.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I was just clarifying for User:How do you turn this on. Indented a little too far, I guess. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyme, you know I like you, but this is poor form. Rather than evade your block to contest its details at a noticeboard, please post a request for one of our code monkeys to nick a transclusion template from the old WP:CSN board so that you can walk the straight and narrow while you present your position. You have many virtues as an editor, but civility is a problem. You know how to reach me by Skype and email. I'm a sysop at three other WMF projects and would proudly mentor you at any of them. Let's take steps in the right direction. Sincerely, DurovaCharge! 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest something as this tit-for-tat IP post and block is nonproductive. We have had one RfC and maybe it is time for a forum again at another, or here, we can open a case to discuss options. Ultimately, are we at the point where Everyme's participation is a net negative or can something be salvaged toward 'pedia building? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Almost every time I see this page (admittedly not very often!) I see Everyme being blocked, asking to be unblocked, or complaining about being blocked but not unblocked. Is there a place where one can see why he/she/it was blocked in the first place? (Just curious.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some relevant recent threads in reverse chronological order, i.e. most recent first: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive491#User:Everyme, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Everyme, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Remarks_by_Everyme. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for a neutal clerk at Jehochman's ArbCom bid
Per Jehochman's request, seeking a neutral clerk for his candidate page. Another editor started a threaded discussion beneath my vote. I requested a move to the talk page, but the other editor continued threaded discussion on the voting page. So I attempted to move the discussion to talk. Jehochman reverted and asked me to seek a neutral party to do the move. DurovaCharge! 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Serious copyright problem; help sought
- Michael Drew (talk · contribs)
While investigating a ticket at today's current copyright problem batch, I discovered literally dozens of articles that have been created with copyrighted text by the same contributor, spanning back to 2006. I have spent over three hours identifying and tagging these, cleaning a few of the easier ones but mostly just trying to get them identified and blanked for processing. The ones I've tagged {{copyvio}} are listed together here. (So far today, I've only listed this contributor's work. That means all of those articles with my username attached are his.) These problems persist at least until his third most recent article, with this duplicating the last three paragraphs of that. This, like some other infringement, had already been cleaned or overwritten by subsequent edits when I found it.
I have only looked at article's listed on this contributor's userpage. Any assistance from other admins looking into his other contributions would be greatly appreciated. I'm exhausted. :) I'm planning to ask the Wikiproject to help clean up the listed articles before they come "current" in 7 days, but that doesn't always bring response. I'd also be grateful for any assistance anyone here can offer with that, because I can already see that December 9th is likely to be a very challenging day at WP:CP.
I'm also requesting opinions on addressing this contributor. He has never (before today) received an official copyright warning, but he was called for "plagiarism" in August of 2006, here. He apologized and claimed that he had believed the material in public domain. Then he quietly continued copying text from that and other sites; as one single example, this article, pasted mere weeks after the above exchange. I'm all for giving second chances, but effectively this contributor has already been given one. I think he at least needs an occasional check from somebody to see if he's utilizing others' text. I don't really have time to follow through. I'm already committed to monitoring a serial copyright infringer from an ANI thread a couple of weeks back (here...and that one continues aggressively minimizing his infringement on one of those articles here).
So, fellow admins, what's to do? Should I seek additional eyes on his future edits from his wikiproject? Would one of you like to take it on? I will, of course, invite his participation here, but given the history feel wider attention is necessary regardless. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- He hasn't been editing hockey articles for quite awhile since we had a number of his pages deleted. I have been watching his edits since then, but I admit I wasn't looking for copy vios but rather notability. I will watch his future contribs and I am fixing his past copyvio'd ones since the players are notable but the info is obviously from a bad source. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Schoolblock?
Never having done one of these before, I'll ask here first: do I need to do anything special or notify anyone in particular in order to implement a schoolblock? I've got a pestilential IP User:216.253.220.18 which resolves to "Harmony Science Academy" in El Paso. In the interests of both harmony and science, I've blocked them for three months (1-month blocks have had no effect) but I'd like to make it a schoolblock just in case. Thanks... GJC 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just put {{schoolblock}} on the talkpage – iridescent 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was easy--especially since someone else already took care of it. :) Thanks! GJC 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Blacklist on Blackberry 8820
This page Blackberry 8820 can't be created, with a blacklist message ending here. I'd like to turn said page into a redirct to
List_of_BlackBerry_products. I'm also curious where I can look to find out how the page got blacklisted. Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
class assignment
This is a sort of heads-up -- I don't think any action is required at this point. Apparently there is a Neuroscience class at Georgia Tech, with about 60 students, who have all been given an assignment, for 10% of their grades, to either write a new Wikipedia article on a Neuroscience topic or expand a short one. They (or at least some of them) have user names that look like Gtg123x, and their deadline is apparently today. I've tried to get in touch with the instructor, but haven't heard back so far. I've also been monitoring the results as far as I can see them, and so far it looks like more good than harm, but of course the early results are likely to be the best ones, so we'll see. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, following the true college students' manifesto: wait until the last day. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why put off until tomorrow what you can put off until one hour before class? JPG-GR (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Procrastination is only effective if you finish it on time.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why put off until tomorrow what you can put off until one hour before class? JPG-GR (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
TWINKLE Readd Request
Due to a "wiki scuffle" which involved TWINKLE, my access to that program and my monobook page were blocked. This was a month ago. Since there I have seen (like you) many cases of vandalism and it is difficult to revert and warn in a timely fashion. I would request, with admin blessing, that I be allowed to once again use TWINKLE. I would also ask that my edits, while using TWINKLE, be monitored so you (the admin) know I am using it correctly. Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 20:30
- Twinkle is not a necessity in performing the actions you have mentioned. Moreover, you leave out that you've had Twinkle removed a total of three times in the past. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46
- Are you asking to be monitored just as a voluntary condition for getting it back (similar to how editors must accept mentoring to be unblocked) or because you really don't trust yourself to make the correct decisions with it? If its the latter, why should other people have to spend their time watching you when it would be far easier to just not give TW back? Passive, after-the-fact monitoring only serves to prevent a bad decision become a string of bad decisions, its not a substitute for good judgment. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am asking that people watch my edits so you know that I am using the program correctly. I intend to use it correctly, but it is easier for you all to see with your eyes that "yes, he is using it correctly" then to take my word for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:06
- It looks like you've already been given enough chances with Twinkle to prove to everyone that you can't be trusted with it. You don't need another one. Just get used to vandal-fighting without it. That's what most of us do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- So much for trying to AGF. "Suck it up"...nice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:19
- "Suck it up" isn't an assumption of anything; it's just a piece of good advice. Which of course you're entirely at liberty to ignore... -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- So much for trying to AGF. "Suck it up"...nice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:19
- It looks like you've already been given enough chances with Twinkle to prove to everyone that you can't be trusted with it. You don't need another one. Just get used to vandal-fighting without it. That's what most of us do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am asking that people watch my edits so you know that I am using the program correctly. I intend to use it correctly, but it is easier for you all to see with your eyes that "yes, he is using it correctly" then to take my word for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:06
- Are you asking to be monitored just as a voluntary condition for getting it back (similar to how editors must accept mentoring to be unblocked) or because you really don't trust yourself to make the correct decisions with it? If its the latter, why should other people have to spend their time watching you when it would be far easier to just not give TW back? Passive, after-the-fact monitoring only serves to prevent a bad decision become a string of bad decisions, its not a substitute for good judgment. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46
- I definitely oppose any restoration of the tool to Neutralhomer. Three times is a significant amount to have it removed. Additionally, he's done questionable reverting in the last month since the tool was taken away (see User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive2#Non-free_galleries where he reverted many of Betacommand's edits despite being in a major content dispute with him). Giving him the tool back would only aid such action, either way (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Mr.Z-man - I fail to see why anyone should have to utilize their precious time to monitor your edits using Twinkle when Twinkle isn't a great necessity. Whether your recent reverts were appropriate or not (I haven't looked into it, don't see much need to), Twinkle isn't necessary for any vandal fighting you may be interested in doing. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you take the time to edit more slowly and carefully, then everyone else isn't going to have to look over your shoulder. It seems like not having Twinkle is the ideal solution. Of course, my understanding may be limited since I've never used any tool more powerful than rollback. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:AIV is a Buzzin'!
WP:AIV is a buzzin' today with activity. A few more sets of eyes wouldn't hurt at the moment!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
help with closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport
I've just closed this debate, and it took me a lot longer than I had expected to write my closing rationale. As a result I don't have time to clear the AfD templates off of the affected pages. Is there anyone out there with an automated tool that could help with this? Mangojuicetalk 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- PHEW...after over an hour and a half of non-stop tag removing and tag adding I cleared through that horrendously massive list of nominated pages O.O. Did the first half manually and searched for scripts to help at the same time. Found a couple and tweaked around with them a little and was able to clear through the rest much easier. Hope that helped you ;)...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- And now someone will take it to DRV and you can put them all back… – iridescent 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh good go no...hope they wait at least a day.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- 15 minutes later: WP:Deletion review/Active#July 29 in rail transport. :) --Amalthea 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh good go no...hope they wait at least a day.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- And now someone will take it to DRV and you can put them all back… – iridescent 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Moroccan propaganda campaign?
According to this article some kind of officially sanctioned Moroccan is supposedly starting a concerted effort to shape public opinion about the relationship between the kingdom and Western Sahara. Here's the full quote:
One of these groups, the US "Morocco Board", today started a new propaganda drive targeting the global encyclopaedia Wikipedia, written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. According to the Morocco Board, Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom "are sadly not always accurate as fanatic pro-Polisario activists abuse of the free global encyclopaedia to push anti-Morocco propaganda."
The pressure group with royal funding thus is urging Moroccan all over the world to "participate actively to stop this." It asks Moroccans to enter Wikipedia articles about the Kingdom and the Western Sahara conflict and to edit them, giving instructions about how this is made and how they can avoid being banned by Wikipedia editing rules.
I honestly don't trust this claim at all without further verification, and looking at the history the Western Sahara article I don't yet see anything particularly alarming. But I thought I'd bring it up so anyone interested could keep an extra eye on these articles for the time being. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what would be our recourse if it COULD be verified that the Moroccan government (or some agency thereof) was advocating this sort of concerted action on behalf of one POV? Just wondering. GJC 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- (fecking e/c)JoshuaZ, I don't think ThuranX was advocating that in THIS case; I think he was responding to my hypothetical. At least, I HOPE that's what he was doing... :) GJC 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a very bad idea. Especially when the article explicitly says that they are " urging Moroccan all over the world" to do this. The solution as almost always for these things is to put more regular editors eyes on the matter and preserve NPOV ruthlessly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- National IP ban would be a fun solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article seems to be presenting a rather biased view of the article in question, which is here. The "instructions about ... how they can avoid being banned" is basically: don't vandalize, use sources, discuss changes, don't break 3RR. Hardly gaming the system. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User requests speedy deletion of article of himself
FadulJoseA (talk · contribs) repeatedly requests speedy deletion of the article about himself, which is Jose Fadul. First, I don't think we can do that since he is notable... but I don't even know if he really is who he says he is. I heard before that he is supposed to email to the Wikimedia Foundation through an email address not hosted by the normal ones (such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail). Anyway, does anyone here think we should take action (if any)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he should email OTRS (emailing you would also be ok as long as you can reasonably confirm the email is really from him and not an impostor). Moreover, given the current lack of consensus about under what circumstances we will delete BLPs on request the article will need to go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- This page may provide further background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did a quick pass and removed some stuff that raised BLP flags - in particular an unsourced allegation of plagiarism. That aside, the whole article probably needs a good copyedit - reading it felt a tad "stalkerish", with lots of details about his early life and illnesses which seemed a tad out of place and to have too much weight, but that may just be me. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What do we do about abuse by a WIkipedia Administrator??
What do we do if a WIkipedia Administrator seems to show inappropriate behavior, biased behavior, personal shepherding of a semi-protected article to make sure it keeps to their personal opinion on the subject -- even using insults towards a particular social group in Talk to keep the article to that one viewpoint?
In other words someone who never should have become an Admin and should be stripped of Admin privileges?
It's an absolute nightmare to think Wikipedia would let the wrong person have that much power.
And 10 times worse that the "review" procedure for this may consist of a few random other Admins (who may be friends with the problem Admin) glancing at the complaint and dismissing it with "nice try -- he's not doing anything at all wrong as far as I can see". (Which may not be far.)
Can I hope that there is a formal Administrator Review Tribunal, with the Admin in handcuffs behind the virtual wooden dock (not chuckling with his colleagues), and the citizenry testifying nobly about their abuse at the hands of the corrupt local official?
As Juvenal said, "Who will watch the watchers"?
76.201.171.230 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
- All of us. Doesn't matter whether you're a bureaucrat, an administrator or an editor -- you keep an eye on every other Wikipedian and you call them on bad behaviour no matter who. The answer to Juvenal's age-old question is "We all watch each other". When we find a problem there are various things we can do to air the problem and see what other fellow editors think. ArbComm's not the only venue: in fact it's the last resort. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution article describes what can be done. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is this hypothetical? ArbCom watches the watchers. Wait, I know what you're going to ask: Who watches arbcom? Well, it's ArbComs all the way down. CIreland (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I can't think of any reasonable dispute resolution step before ArbCom though. Do you have any suggestions? Asking the Administrator to change his basic nature or resign from administration doesn't seem likely to be productive, and has big potential for subjecting me to abuse. Discussing with others how the Administrator might be asked to change his basic nature or resign doesn't seem likely to be productive either. Are there any established intermediate steps before ArbCom that I must take, before asking for an Admin to be stripped of privileges? Thanks!
- 75.36.158.243 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
- Dispute resolution is pretty much a must. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Along those lines, if there's an actual problem with an actual admin behaving badly on some actual page, you're actually going to have to provide specifics at some point so that others can be "those who watch the watchers". Otherwise you're keeping the onus entirely on yourself, which you have found to be an unsuccessful approach. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution is pretty much a must. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wouldn't be here without a juicy, succinct, and fully documentable actual complaint. : ) I'll see if there's anything feasible that I can do with Dispute Resolution and then try ArbCom. Does anyone have an archived example of previous Dispute Resolution where an editor wants an Admin stripped of privileges -- and actually got somewhere, with a good, documented claim? Everything there seems to be about edtior-vs-editor, and "making up and being friends".
- 75.36.154.163 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
Thanks to all of you. Would you please leave this thread as-is, here at this location, for however long an ArbCom review takes, as I am citing a link to it in my further efforts. Thank you.
75.36.147.96 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)John
- Unfortunately, these threads are archived automatically. However, it's relatively easy to keep an eye on this page for a few days and then check which archive subpage it ends up at.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I should note that the Arbitration Committee is supposed to be a last resort, after all the steps at WP:Dispute resolution have been gone through. Please don't go directly to them. Thanks, and good luck settling your dispute.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) As a bot cleans it periodically, that won't be possible. You should rather use a permanent link to this version of the page, including the section, i.e. [10]. Regards SoWhy 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange problem with attribution template
{{StateDept}} is marked as a protected template, but apparently it is not protected. I didn't want to remove the template without notifying the powers that be, because maybe it should be protected as a high-risk template. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the template, as the page is not only not protected as noted, but it wasn't when the template was added. Likely a copy/paste issue. JPG-GR (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for the high risk question, I have no idea what a "large number of pages" is, but that template is transcluded in fewer than 500 pages. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion for Wikipedia
Every wikipedia article should display, at the bottom or on a linked page, all other articles that reference it. Surely it would not be hard to implement this. Please pass this message on to the wikiGods.
- Erm, that would crash the servers and...did you ever take notice of the What links here link in the toolbox at the left. It basically does what you just requested to be implemented (without placing a long list of pages on the article itself).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unable to add content due to text-mode Web browser
I tried to add text to the discussion page, but it asked me to type in the text in a box I can't see because I'm using a VT100 emulator through a Unix shell and lynx to get to WikiPedia. It said if I can't see the picture because I'm on a text-only browser, I should come here to get assistance of manager, but this here is the only way I could find to express my frustration and solicit help. Please go to my Web site at tinyurl.com/uh3t, pass a 2-step Turing text to prove you aren't a spambot, to reach a MAILTO link, and please e-mail me very quickly now, before I go to bed, to tell me what text is in the box I can't see that I need to type to post my discussion text.
- Are you trying to add a URL to a talkpage? That's the only reason I know of that Wikipedia would ask you to solve a CAPTCHA. --Carnildo (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk page revision deletion request
Is it possible to delete claims like this in Harold Holt's talk page history? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unecessary - Holt has been dead since the 60s (Or has he? OoOoOoOo!) ViridaeTalk 09:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- He's currently in Category:Disappeared people, for whom BLP applies. Andjam (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Block review
141.211.217.48
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive89#Runcorn and sockpuppets banned
It's long past time to review this. This is one of several "sockpuppet of Antidote" indefinite blocks made by Runcorn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (which can be found in xyr block log) that are not on either Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/...And Beyond!. This account, for starters, was blocked in October 2006 for one article reversion, a request for sources on a talk page, and modifications to a to-do list on a talk page, apparently removing duplicate and processed items from that list. It and several of the other indefinitely blocked IP addresses are assigned to the University of Michigan. I wonder how many productive contributors at that university and elsewhere have been excluded from editing Wikipedia for these past two years because of these blocks. See the prior Noticeboard discussion for why these blocks are suspect. Please review. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever the reason for the block, an indefinite block of an IP that was used for 8 minutes two years ago is unwarranted. I've unblocked it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Aervanath is premature in thinking that this is resolved. As I said, there are a whole load more of these blocks. Here are some more from Runcorn's block log from 2006:
141.213.210.108
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.213.209.234
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.213.57.23
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.211.251.74
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.213.51.76
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.211.251.70
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.211.216.33
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)141.213.31.230
(talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above IPs have been proxy-checked and unblocked. I'll take a double-check through Runcorn's block log later. There are more indef-blocked IPs in CAT:INDEFIPs, if anyone's looking for something to do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Threats of violence
This has already been seen at ANI, and relevant discussion is at WP:AE and the associated ArbCom case. This thread is not necessary. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Some anon comments<random comment> God. The situation really stinks. Here's a rational, albeit very impulsive, defender of the mainstream view, and he's hounded by hordes who have their own agenda to advance. And there's also, for example (naming no names) a civil POV-pusher (hint: party to an ongoing ArbCom case) who actually admitted both on-site and off-site to pushing a POV-agenda, and who by his editing managed to bring a fairly important article down from FA and down from GA... And yet, because this POV-pusher remained civil throughout (and has not resorted to obviously stupid tactics such as sockpuppetting or incivility), he managed to remain unblocked, and free to continue his campaign; while the impulsive and passionate defender of the mainstream view is subject to all sorts of attacks... </random comment> (Sorry, need to get this off my chest) 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
|
This talk page was made by IP address 24.72.1.20, there isn't even an article for that talk page to be there. Most of the IP's edits [15] from a glance are vandalism and such. I request the deletion of this page (have a look at it) and the administrators can make their own decision on whether to block this IP or not. --Kushan I.A.K.J 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Vsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ...and ip blocked w/schoolblock. Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Socks
There is a large water fowl population hovering around User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#HPJoker_complaint. Any help would be appreciated. MBisanz talk 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom talk pages
I am writing to open a discussion that involves the intersection of two issues: the purpose of talk pages, and ArbCom procedures. I have a concern that arises out of an ArbCom case closed in October. I will explain the context, but I have waited over a month to raise this discussion because I do NOT want to rehash a closed case. My concern is with future cases, and I think we need to develop clear guidelines for future cases. I am raising the issue here because I think we need some wide discussion before proposing any specific changes to an ArbCom policy page.
Here is the background, but I emphasize that this is just an example; I do not want to discuss this particular example, just the implications of the deletion of talk page discussion for future ArbCom cases. In October ArbCom addressed a case filed by Thatcher concerning Slim Virgin and Lar. When the case was first opened, the proceedings were confidential because of checkuser issues (later, the concerned parties agreed to give up their rights to privacy). Perhaps in such cases there should be no talk page. But there was a talk page which implies that there is some appropriate purpose to talk.
I posted a great deal to the talk page for the proposed decision in the Thatcher-Slim Virgin-Lar case. I began with a set of questions concerning the wording of the presentation of the case. My questions did not address private or confidential issues, and did not require answers that would breach privacy or confidentiality (they were about wording and procedure and policy). No one from ArbCom ever responded to my questions. At the end of the month user:Newyorkbrad archived the talk and posted an explanation with instructions that there be no further talk. In effect, ArbCom was prohibiting discussion of the case.
I fully accept the fact that ArbCom on occasion needs to keep portions of its investigations confidential. I would have no objection if ArbCom archived any discussion that breached or threatened to breach privacy or confidentiality. But this is not what ArbCom did. ArbCom instead, in effect, prohibited any and all discussion on the talk page.
I beieve that it is wrong to prohibit any discussion of a case on the appropriate talk page. I realize that this belief and the need for confidentiality may clash. I am bringing this up because it seems to me that this situation will come up in the future. I think we need some proposals for policies on this regard, proposals that can be fully and openly discussed and decided upon by the community. Off the top of my head, such a policy would provide guidelines for what kinds of talk would be encouraged or permitted on a talk page, and what kinds would not. It would also provide clear guidelines for enforcement (i.e. the policing of the contributions made to the page). I repeat, I understand ArbCom may consider some kinds of talk to violate the integrity of the arbitration. I just do not believe that this can be sufficient cause to prohibit any discussion at all. The community - and ArbCom - needs clear guidelines as to what are the acceptable limits to talk, and the acceptable limits to deletion by ArbCom or Oversight. Articles, policy, and project pages all have talk pages for good reasons. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As experienced editors administrators - even as a disorganized, heterogeneous and frequently divided group of editors - provide one of the few meaningful checks on ArbCom power. We administrators have in my opinion an obligation to observe how ArbCom works, and comment on the fairness and efficacy of its procedures. I know that many editors currently have a host of concerns about ArbCom. I mean only to raise one specific issue which I hope we can discuss constructively. I hope we can come up with a set of constructive proposals relatively quickly, concerning this one issue. After this matter is resolved, perhaps others will want to raise other issues, but I ask that we focus on just this issue first ... just handle things one at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would not be too late to raise the issue as a question on the various candidates pages, although perhaps an RfC would allow wider community discussion - while admins (even the inexperienced ones) have the means to collectively provide checks on the ArbCom, it should only be so at the behest of the community. As with ArbCom, sysops are tasked to serve and not lead. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do feel you have raised an important issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't ask any candidate because I frankly am not sure what I think is the best approach and wouldn't know how to gage their responses. I certainly wouldn't object if you ro someone else could turn this into a concise question to ask the candidates. I still think it is a good idea to have wide discussion. I'm not sure what page is liekly to attract a wider discussion than this though I would certainly welcome the views of any editor. Be that as it may, admins are not just admins, they are editors too! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- This does seem strange, Slrubenstein. From what you say, there's been an unfortunate lack of courtesy. If the intention was that there should be no discussion of this confidential case, there should either have been no talk page or, perhaps better, a protected page with a notice or template explaining in broad principle the decision that there should be no discussion. Doubtless this wasn't thought about, but having wasted your time by effectively inviting discussion then ignoring it, there should have been the courtesy of an explanation and an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you'd raised. Obviously I don't know how far the posted explanation went, but it would seem sensible that there should be guidance that clerks opening a case should make the talk page situation clear. There's also the broader aspect of maintaining maximum community involvement and transparency, as much as possible giving due priority to the importance of privacy. A question to candidates might be a godd way of getting views on these issues. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, nobody really thought of the issue completely before things went too far on that talk page. Thus the unplanned and messy way things went down.
- A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think. Talk pages and Workshop all too often just become a continuation and exacerbation of the disagreement under arbitration, and that is counterproductive. I think one of the conditions has to be that once an arbcom case begins, the fight stops, subject to blocking for the duration of the case. The arbcom is a deliberative body, and our role is not to have to police the interactions of the parties as they continue to squabble.
- Tied into this is that parties in arbcom cases spend a large portion of their time while under arbitration trying to win the case in the court of public opinion, rather than by fixing the problem or even arguing their case well in front of the committee. This has been an issue particularly this year.
- In a case like this, the issue was and is that parties to the case were carrying on the argument in public, while other parties could not defend themselves from allegations because it would involve bringing up matters that could not be discussed in public.
- In my personal opinion, future cases of this kind must include more strongly worded injunctions to the parties that continuing the disagreement in public cannot continue. It is not desirable to limit the ability of the community to watch and make their views known except as absolutely necessary.
- This ties into another issue with the arbitration process; increasingly, the AC is being drawn into situations where there is placed an expectation of rapid action and rapid decision-making. Committees do not do rapid action and rapid decision-making very well, especially a fairly large committee of sometimes wildly varying views, scattered worldwide and with full-time jobs and lives which mean we find it difficult to always be paying attention to the frenetic pace of Wikipedia drama.
- The community seems to prefer electing Wikipedians of reasonable maturity and level-headedness to the AC, which increases the chance that we have jobs and busy lives that mean we can't always respond quickly to crises, real or imagined. (I do feel that many of the "crises" are only such because of the frenzied, over-caffeinated speed which some Wikipedians appear to operate, which leads to an intolerance for slower action).
- The AC as currently constituted can make efforts to be more efficient, but notably every AC election elects a new slate of arbitrators committed to speeding things up, and things never speed up all that much. Better coordination mechanisms can certainly be employed, but I think this will make things that formerly took months take only weeks, and things that took weeks take maybe a week. It won't make the AC able to make decisions in minutes or hours with any degree of quality.
- Therefore, I think, if the ability to make such decisions is actually needed, it must be through mechanisms that are different than the AC. What those might be, I'm not sure.
- I think that in the end what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done. Unfortunately, nobody who'd be good at the job would want the job. Jimbo used to do the job, but it became too much for him, and that was years ago, when en.wp was much, much smaller - and many, myself included, feel that some decisions were made poorly entirely because the project, even earlier than that, grew to a size and complexity too hard for one person to quickly comprehend.
- There are no magic bullets to good governance. Especially of a project like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Morven may well be right that "what many Wikipedians really want is the archetypal Benevolent God-King who'll lay down the law speedily and fairly, and tell us all what should be done," but I think that this possibility reflects quite poorly on Wikipedia. The community itself should be the source of policies and procedures, and this is the main reason I raised the topic here rather than asking ArbCom members or candidates - it is up to us to work out these things. I do agree with Morven that "A larger issue is that the role of talk pages and public discussion in arbcom cases needs some review and some ground rules, I think." I am happy putting the Thatcher case behind me, behind us - I am not sure if ArbCom was being discourteous by ignoring me, but I accept Morven's general explanation. I think Dave is right that if ArbCom wants NO discussion it should protect the talk page from the start. That said, I find it hard to imagine any case in which this could be so. i think talk pages are essential to the transparency and accountability of ArbCom. Now, it is perfectly reasonable as Morven suggests to insist that parties to an arbitration stop their arguments during the arbitration, commit to using ArbCom procedures spelled out on the appropriate project pages, and not bring their disputes to the talk pages. This would leave talk pages free for "meta" discussion about how the ArbCom case is progressing. What I mean is, and this is an off the top of my head suggestion, is that talk pages be reserved for case-based discussions of the arbitration process, that it be used to raise and discuss procedural questions.
We - I mean ArbCom and editors - need an agreement as to what kind of talk is and is not allowed on such pages. Just as talk on article pages must be about improving the article, I think talk on the ArbCom pages should be about improving the arbitration process. It is fair that we editors demand that ArbCom take such talk seriously and respond to it assuming good faith. It is fair for ArbCom in turn to expect such talk to be made in good faith and to be constructive in intent.
The bottom line is, if ArbCom has an unprotected talk page, then it must accept some kind of discussion by editors on that page. ArbCom is not a council of philosopher-kings or gods to hand down law from on high. It has to come up from us. I have forwarded one idea. I urge other admins and editors to join and widen this discussion. We need to generate ideas and proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Slrubenstein that this is an important issue, and am glad he raised it. I'm sympathetic with his view that cases, even private ones, should allow public discussion about matters which are not, in and of themselves, private. However, I'm also sympathetic to the view that many of these discussions aren't particularly helpful; they, like the Workshop pages, are often simply the playground for very small groups of partisans to re-enact the battle that led to the case, or to act as each others claquers. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive IP editing
I have begun to rollback all edits by the IP address 82.4.220.242. The IP has done almost nothing other than add either incorrect or completely superfluous categories to articles, as well as incorrect death information. I began undoing each, but after realizing the pattern, I've begun treating these edits as vandalism and rolling them back. I just wanted to submit my work to a larger audience for review. This IP seems disruptive in the extreme to me, and I was also wondering if the IP should be blocked. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a better place for my request? S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe spam, but I think this is a good place to start - you are right to come here and see what others think. As for me, well, are you sure the death information is incorrect? I don't mean to challenge your good faith, I really do not know, but the few cases i looked at, I didn't catch information to the contrary. But if you are sure the information is incorrect and not just missing a citation, I agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some of them I'm sure of, and that, combined with the spamming of useless categories, led me to the conclusion that rolling back all the IPs edits had the most net benefit to the project. S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they continue. I recommend that S. Dean Jameson not go over 3RR when reverting because it's not obvious that this is plain vandalism. (This may be a slightly misguided version of good-faith editing). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- With the length of time this IP has been placing needless (and multiple) categories, and incorrect causes of death across multiple articles, and given the warnings he's already received, I feel it's safe to assume that they're not editing in good faith at this point. With that said, I'll let others revert the nonsense now. S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they continue. I recommend that S. Dean Jameson not go over 3RR when reverting because it's not obvious that this is plain vandalism. (This may be a slightly misguided version of good-faith editing). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IP still at it
Still going... S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Messed up (I think) moves on Biblical history'/archaeology
I can't quite figure out what has happened here. We now have Biblical archaeology school but go to [16] and then click on the article. Then click on the talk page, there seems to be a problem with the associations and a loss of history. Biblical archaeology (excavations and artifacts) has lost its original talk page. Then there are these moves [17] so I am completely confused now. I'm exhausted so I may be missing something, but I have no idea how to fix this mess and get the history back and the talk pages in the right place. I'm not even sure the moves were discussed enough or make sense. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend
Ok, so here's the story:
AussieLegend and I wer edit warring on Windows XP. Eventually, I gave up, sick of it, but no. Aussie had to virtually "stalk" me. She reverts almost all of my edits, (legit ones), nominates everything I create for deletion, no matter what, and attacks me in clever non-direct ways. I was wondering if someone could just...block her for a day???, please??? I am tired of getting on wikipedia and having him/her (think it is a her) harass me. Please, can someone intervene? Anyone? It would be appreciated with the highest level. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- What edits of yours, besides your edits to Windows XP, your unexplained removal of discussions, and your editing of other people's comments, has AussieLenged reverted? AussieLenged gave a good reason for reverting your edit to Windows XP, and there is now consensus to revert it. In spite of this, you kept reverting those reverts. What's wrong with nominating pages for deletion, as long as there is a valid reason? You keep leaving harassing messages, such as [18], [19], and [20] on User talk:AussieLegend. If anyone here needs blocking, it's you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have had serious concerns about Encyclopedia77's edits since his/her first attempts to bulldoze those edits into Windows XP without discussion. The only person actually edit-warring was Encyclopedia77. I even had to warn him about possibly breaching 3RR.[21] I certainly wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Two other editors also took exception and reverted.[22][23] Invitations to discuss the edits on the talk page, by way of edit summaries[24][25] and invitations on the user's talk page,[26] were fruitless. Ultimately Encyclopedia77's response was deletion of the discussion, twice.[27][28] The list of unacceptable edits by Encyclopedia77 is considerable. For example, when I tried to discuss the edits at Windows XP he edited my comments on his talk page to change their meaning.[29] After I changed them back and left a warning about doing that[30] his response was a silly comment on my talk page.[31] He has deleted content from my talk page archives[32] and accused Josh the Nerd of being a sockpuppet.[33] As recently as today, after having suggested that he acquaint himself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines several days ago,[34] he has again deleted content, this time from my talk page.[35] Encyclopedia77's editing style and general actions raise a number of red flags making me somewhat suspicious that his vandalism days aren't completely behind him and he certainly bears watching. To be fair, and assuming good faith, I don't think all of his "errors" are malicious and he needs some mentoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would seem there are some rather major concerns with 77's editing and behaviour looking at the diffs and contribs. Incidentally, as someone who's been on the other side of a content debate (I wouldn't really call it a dispute) from AussieLegend before, I've found them to be civil, to favour discussion of points of contention, to put their point forcefully but not to engage in ill means to do so. We've been quite able to reach acceptable compromises from different points of view. Orderinchaos 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have had serious concerns about Encyclopedia77's edits since his/her first attempts to bulldoze those edits into Windows XP without discussion. The only person actually edit-warring was Encyclopedia77. I even had to warn him about possibly breaching 3RR.[21] I certainly wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Two other editors also took exception and reverted.[22][23] Invitations to discuss the edits on the talk page, by way of edit summaries[24][25] and invitations on the user's talk page,[26] were fruitless. Ultimately Encyclopedia77's response was deletion of the discussion, twice.[27][28] The list of unacceptable edits by Encyclopedia77 is considerable. For example, when I tried to discuss the edits at Windows XP he edited my comments on his talk page to change their meaning.[29] After I changed them back and left a warning about doing that[30] his response was a silly comment on my talk page.[31] He has deleted content from my talk page archives[32] and accused Josh the Nerd of being a sockpuppet.[33] As recently as today, after having suggested that he acquaint himself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines several days ago,[34] he has again deleted content, this time from my talk page.[35] Encyclopedia77's editing style and general actions raise a number of red flags making me somewhat suspicious that his vandalism days aren't completely behind him and he certainly bears watching. To be fair, and assuming good faith, I don't think all of his "errors" are malicious and he needs some mentoring. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?
There appears to be a distinct pattern of block voting emerging on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb. Editors involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute are voting en bloc to oppose Jayvdb's candidacy. The pattern of voting - all within a short time of each other, some not meeting the 150 edits qualification threshold and most participating solely in Jayvdb's nomination, in some cases after periods of inactivity ranging from a few days to a year (!) - suggests to me that someone has been soliciting opposition to Jayvdb's candidacy, probably off-wiki. Is there anywhere, other than here of course, where these concerns can be raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Talk page? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is canvassing not permitted for straight votes? I know it's not permitted to article space matters but is there a injunction not to do so in a straight election matter? Even if they have voted on ethnic grounds? so what? people do that in elections all the time, that's the nature of elections. if they are enfranchised, they are enfrancised, no? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think WP:CANVASS would apply in this as in all other community discussions. I'll pose a question for Cameron - if someone sent around an e-mail to like-minded editors saying "please vote to oppose Jayvdb because he's biased against Azeris", would you consider that acceptable? I would say that such behaviour undermines the integrity of ArbCom votes - they're not supposed to be proxies for fighting ethnic or cultural conflicts. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no doubts this is happening, and how it is being organised, but no proof. I am not sure what can or should be done; after all this is an election and they are all eligible. See Special:Contributions/Samir for an example that defies any other rational explanation. Note that Samir is an admin. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I've asked if Samir would like to comment on the matter (and notified him that he's mentioned here). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other examples of the same thing - it's what aroused my suspicions in the first place. See e.g. Special:Contributions/Hayk, Special:Contributions/Chaldean, Special:Contributions/MarshallBagramyan, Special:Contributions/157.228.x.x, Special:Contributions/Kaaveh_Ahangar. All have been inactive for a period of days, weeks or months, and all have reappeared within a few hours of each other to oppose you specifically but have not participated in any of the other candidacies, or on any other pages since casting a vote against you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I opposed Jayvdb's candicacy for my own reasons, I find this very disturbing. Every candidate deserves a fair hearing, and this type of canvassing doesn't seem to offer him such a fair hearing. What can be done about this? S.D.D.J.Jameson 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other examples of the same thing - it's what aroused my suspicions in the first place. See e.g. Special:Contributions/Hayk, Special:Contributions/Chaldean, Special:Contributions/MarshallBagramyan, Special:Contributions/157.228.x.x, Special:Contributions/Kaaveh_Ahangar. All have been inactive for a period of days, weeks or months, and all have reappeared within a few hours of each other to oppose you specifically but have not participated in any of the other candidacies, or on any other pages since casting a vote against you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Could also be compromised accounts. -Djsasso (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this guy Armenian or Azerbaijan so I will know how to vote? TIA --Tom 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, went to vote page and found out. Cheers! --Tom 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Supposing it is happening- and the evidence is rather clear- there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it? Unless we wanted to restrict voting to editors who have edited within the last week... and even that seems easy to circumvent. l'aquatique || talk 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen related patterns in at least seven voters who recently supported me (and others just below Jayvdb in the current election table), just after opposing Jayvdb, presumably as part of tactical voting to help boost those currently near or below Jayvdb. The clearest example is here. Unfortunately, with this sort of open voting system it is very hard to avoid this sort of thing happening. It has already happened with many people tactically voting on an individual basis (which is fine), and there may be block voting already happening by other "interest groups" that is less obvious, but this is the first time I've seen what looks like a co-ordinated effort actually seriously affect a candidate's position in the election. As a candidate in the election myself, and someone who is clearly benefitting from this, I don't want to say any more than this. I would have kept out of this discussion, as I have been doing for other election discussions, but I can't in all conscience, now that I've noticed the pattern, stand by and let this happen without comment. Even though there may not be much that they can do, I suggest that the election clerks (whoever they are) be informed, and this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008, rather than having a long thread on this noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) I think a certain amount of off-wiki canvassing is normal in these situations. However, what's going on against Jayvdb seems to be getting out of hand, and the data in Image:ACE2008.jpg pretty clearly shows that there's something bizarre going on. Now, this kind of sudden drop in numbers can be legitimate, especially if a significant issue comes to light. But it can also be a sign of politics and canvassing. In this case I believe it to be the latter, especially since I myself have been getting multiple very aggressive off-wiki contacts by people (plural) who are trying to push me to change my "support" vote to "oppose" on Jayvdb. Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser. They're not talking to me about any other candidate, just Jayvdb, and it's always related to this Armenian issue. Another point of concern is the kind of editors that are showing up to oppose him. I'm seeing multiple inactive users emerging out of mothballs, just to oppose him, but they're not making any other edits. Though I'm not personally familiar with the Armenian/Azeri topic area, it is my understanding that sockpuppetry was a problem during the article disputes. Therefore, it is probably worth checking to see how much sock activity is going on with the elections. Also, can we get one of the bot-wizards to write a utility which will scan through all the votes, to look for any which were made by editors who had no other edits in the last two months? Even if we don't end up invalidating those votes, it would still be helpful to see how extensive the problem is. --Elonka 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a remarkable graph - thanks for posting it. Like Carcharoth, I've never seen a coordinated effort seriously affecting an election like this before. There's no doubt that it is having a serious impact. Judging from the graph data, the canvassing appears to have begun in the early hours of December 2. Frankly, given the clear violations of WP:CANVASS going on here, I think it would be helpful to know who these canvassers are - can we have some names, please, Elonka? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) I think a certain amount of off-wiki canvassing is normal in these situations. However, what's going on against Jayvdb seems to be getting out of hand, and the data in Image:ACE2008.jpg pretty clearly shows that there's something bizarre going on. Now, this kind of sudden drop in numbers can be legitimate, especially if a significant issue comes to light. But it can also be a sign of politics and canvassing. In this case I believe it to be the latter, especially since I myself have been getting multiple very aggressive off-wiki contacts by people (plural) who are trying to push me to change my "support" vote to "oppose" on Jayvdb. Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser. They're not talking to me about any other candidate, just Jayvdb, and it's always related to this Armenian issue. Another point of concern is the kind of editors that are showing up to oppose him. I'm seeing multiple inactive users emerging out of mothballs, just to oppose him, but they're not making any other edits. Though I'm not personally familiar with the Armenian/Azeri topic area, it is my understanding that sockpuppetry was a problem during the article disputes. Therefore, it is probably worth checking to see how much sock activity is going on with the elections. Also, can we get one of the bot-wizards to write a utility which will scan through all the votes, to look for any which were made by editors who had no other edits in the last two months? Even if we don't end up invalidating those votes, it would still be helpful to see how extensive the problem is. --Elonka 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank god "evidence" like that graph could never be used in a real court and only gets introduced into Kangaroo courts. How about the other noms who shot up like rockets and some others that also fell off cliffs. If you want to see something, then you probaly will. There might be nonsense going on, but that graph shows crap, imho. --Tom 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That graph is damning evidence, no matter what you think. No one else "fell off cliffs" remotely like Jay. In the initial phases, a few "shot up like rockets", which basic math explains quite well. No other major anomalies are present at all. S.D.D.J.Jameson 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually Cool Hand Luke fell down a cliff due to anti-Wikipedia Review politics. But that's fine because it's a badsite. --NE2 01:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Luke's drop came in day 1, and is the type of thing that could happen for any number of reasons, not just because of WR. (I'm still considering voting for him, but I don't think he's answered my question yet.) Jay's is more dramatic based upon the fact that it started after day 1, and is so clearly traceable to blatant canvassing. S.D.D.J.Jameson 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- At least half of the opposes directly state WR or Ryan's (extremely misleading) comments as their reasoning. Were it not for the anti-WR politics, he'd likely still be at about 85%. --NE2 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually Cool Hand Luke fell down a cliff due to anti-Wikipedia Review politics. But that's fine because it's a badsite. --NE2 01:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank god "evidence" like that graph could never be used in a real court and only gets introduced into Kangaroo courts. How about the other noms who shot up like rockets and some others that also fell off cliffs. If you want to see something, then you probaly will. There might be nonsense going on, but that graph shows crap, imho. --Tom 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (EC). The spirit of NPOV is that people who detest one another's views have to be able to work together; ArbCom of all institutions MUST embody this ideal. I happen to agree with Elonka that a certain amount of coanvassing is to be expected ... the fact is, I am actually all for canvassing (yeah, yeah, skewer me later). The solution should be to draw even more people, with diverse views, into the discussion. Rather than limit people's involvement in the vote, draw in more people. (of course these kinds of situations are going to reveal to us periodically just what a serious problem it is that the community of Wikipedians is not adequately diverse and has pockets of special-interest editors who distort the whole process. Ultimately, we need some policy, or the Foundation needs a kind of affirmative action policy, to make our community more diverse). My concern here is that a candidat for ArbCom is being dismissed either because of his/her ethnic identity - this is shameful and must be stopped, period - or because of his position in editing articles. ArbCom elections should be based not on what edits a candidate has made, but how s/he negotiates policy and collaborative editing. You know, when we poll people on deleting articles, we do not just count votes - we expect people to provide acceptable reasons. It may be logiscially impossible or unweildy to try to use the same approach here. But it is fair for people to ask those who have voted against to justify their vote in terms of process rather than content. Also, ArbCom members regularly recuse themselves when they are asked to arbitrate a topic in which they have a vested interest. In short, there is no reason to vote against a candidate because s/he has promoted certain content. I am glad Elonka or others will look into sockpuppetry possibilities but what if there is no sockpuppetry? We need to educate people voting that this decision must be based on principle and process, not content. Carcharoth's suggestion seems constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am also troubled by this (disclosure: I voted for him). I'd let it be, but make sure to present to Jimbo all evidence after the election. He can simply appoint J if he thinks there were shennanigans (in fact, it would be a good use of his fiat power). IronDuke 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I see three issues here: the immediate issue is the integrity of the ArbCom vote; i think the key issue is not convassing, but how people justify their votes and how widely different members of the community participate int he vote. There are two other issues of ongoing concern at Wikipedia and we cannot resolve this issue and let the others slide. one is the problem of persistent racist or nationalist POV pushing at Wikipedia; I believe Elonka is on a task force meant to address this problem. The second is the lack of an inadequately diverse community of editors. Wikipedia is growing exponentially, but we should not just congratualate ourselves on raw numbers, as this case illustrates, those numbers have to represent a diverse range of interests and expertise for the project really to benefit and be healthy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- One issue that I'm concerned about is the potential chilling effect on arbitration enforcement. Armenia-Azerbaijan articles are the subject of arbitration sanctions. Jayvdb's intervention in this area has apparently been related to enforcing these restrictions (it's not an area in which I have any involvement). The potential message from this affair appears to be that otherwise well-qualified candidates are at risk of being sunk for reasons of nationalist politics if a group of activist editors decides to stage a covert intervention in elections. In short: if you want to get elected to ArbCom, don't cross the nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)I see three issues here: the immediate issue is the integrity of the ArbCom vote; i think the key issue is not convassing, but how people justify their votes and how widely different members of the community participate int he vote. There are two other issues of ongoing concern at Wikipedia and we cannot resolve this issue and let the others slide. one is the problem of persistent racist or nationalist POV pushing at Wikipedia; I believe Elonka is on a task force meant to address this problem. The second is the lack of an inadequately diverse community of editors. Wikipedia is growing exponentially, but we should not just congratualate ourselves on raw numbers, as this case illustrates, those numbers have to represent a diverse range of interests and expertise for the project really to benefit and be healthy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am also troubled by this (disclosure: I voted for him). I'd let it be, but make sure to present to Jimbo all evidence after the election. He can simply appoint J if he thinks there were shennanigans (in fact, it would be a good use of his fiat power). IronDuke 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- One thing you have to admit about nationalists (of every persuasion, it seems); They are dumb! - if the subject of their opposes were elected onto the Committee, then they would have to recuse in matters relating to nationalist editing... By not being elected then they are free to continue bringing cases to the ArbCom and making statements in support of promoting NPOV and removing bias. Just a thought! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A quick note ... I will not accept the position from Jimbo against the will of the voters. We dont need further meddling in the outcome, and I would prefer that Jimbo only uses his power where there is a need to do so for the good of the project - in this election there are plenty of other good candidates so this is not a time where his involvement is needed. The community needs to work this out, and improve our election process for next year. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (EC). The spirit of NPOV is that people who detest one another's views have to be able to work together; ArbCom of all institutions MUST embody this ideal. I happen to agree with Elonka that a certain amount of coanvassing is to be expected ... the fact is, I am actually all for canvassing (yeah, yeah, skewer me later). The solution should be to draw even more people, with diverse views, into the discussion. Rather than limit people's involvement in the vote, draw in more people. (of course these kinds of situations are going to reveal to us periodically just what a serious problem it is that the community of Wikipedians is not adequately diverse and has pockets of special-interest editors who distort the whole process. Ultimately, we need some policy, or the Foundation needs a kind of affirmative action policy, to make our community more diverse). My concern here is that a candidat for ArbCom is being dismissed either because of his/her ethnic identity - this is shameful and must be stopped, period - or because of his position in editing articles. ArbCom elections should be based not on what edits a candidate has made, but how s/he negotiates policy and collaborative editing. You know, when we poll people on deleting articles, we do not just count votes - we expect people to provide acceptable reasons. It may be logiscially impossible or unweildy to try to use the same approach here. But it is fair for people to ask those who have voted against to justify their vote in terms of process rather than content. Also, ArbCom members regularly recuse themselves when they are asked to arbitrate a topic in which they have a vested interest. In short, there is no reason to vote against a candidate because s/he has promoted certain content. I am glad Elonka or others will look into sockpuppetry possibilities but what if there is no sockpuppetry? We need to educate people voting that this decision must be based on principle and process, not content. Carcharoth's suggestion seems constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Following up on Slrubenstein mentioning ethnicity, I am predominately Dutch and have no relations with anyone in this region of the world - not family, not friends, not professional. None.
- This is solely about my edits on Wikipedia, a meta Checkuser that I initiated 12 months ago, and ending with Ehud Lesar Arbcom case, and the fact that I have offwiki communication with User:Grandmaster, which is being used as part of a smear campaign to indicate that I am impartial. The admins involved in this are just as involved in offwiki communications and have used their tools many more times that I have, and usually always pro Armenian. See User:Jayvdb/AA_involvement for more information; my apologies that it is not better formatted, and is incomplete. I am still building a complete edit history - more coming soon - and I think it will be quite plain to see that I have used my tools and edits to support Armenian and Iranian needs as well, however those edits have been forgotten. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ugly as it is, the underlying problem is that too few ordinary Wikipedians are voting. If more people were voting, the Armenian bloc would have little effect. Now, mostly those who follow wiki-drama are voting. If we go after off-wiki canvassing for ethnic issues, how about Wikipedia Review or IRC canvassing against their enemies? If the Armenians had been voting since day 1 we would never have noticed. How about we replace the fundraiser banner with an election banner for a few days? Sure it would bring rather uninformed votes, but uninformed is better than clique. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- This voting bloc has been voting since day one; it has just taken everyone a while to notice that they are doing so in the numbers that affect outcomes. A lot of ordinary Wikipedians might be waiting to vote at the end of the fortnight, as they may be waiting for others to do the leg work identifying the good candidates and the skeletons. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Questionable votes
I've done a quick review of the votes opposing Jayvdb's candidacy and compiled the following list of "suspicious votes". I looked for editors that had been inactive for at least a couple of days but appeared suddenly around the same time to oppose Jayvdb. Most have participated only in Jayvdb's vote, ignoring all the other candidates. A few have also voted on other candidates but (a) were inactive for a period and (b) on returning cast their first vote to oppose Jayvdb within the timeframe under discussion. Note that I'm not claiming that these editors were definitely canvassed, merely that they meet the criteria I've set out above. I've added a couple more that look fishy; editors who all exhibited the same pattern of participating in the elections with a series of votes that started with votes against Jayvdb at the same time as each other. The order of voting is substantially similar - far more so than mere probability would suggest. Many of the editors in question appear to be heavily involved in Iranian/Persian or Armenian-related articles. There seems to have been a flood of opposing votes commencing from the morning of December 2, which is pretty much what the graph posted by Elonka shows in visual form.
- Special:Contributions/Armatura - inactive 6 weeks
- Special:Contributions/Avg - inactive 4 days
- Special:Contributions/Chaldean - inactive 2 weeks
- Special:Contributions/Davo88 - inactive 2 weeks, previously involved in A-A articles
- Special:Contributions/Farmanesh - inactive 4 days
- Special:Contributions/Gevorg89 - inactive 9 days
- Special:Contributions/Kaaveh_Ahangar - inactive 3 days, does not meet 150 edit threshold
- Special:Contributions/Khoikhoi - admin account, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Raayen and Larno Man (read from the bottom up).
- Special:Contributions/Kourosh_ziabari - inactive 2 weeks, does not meet 150 edit threshold
- Special:Contributions/Larno_Man - inactive 3 days, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Raayen and Khoikhoi (read from the bottom up).
- Special:Contributions/MagneticFlux - inactive 4 months
- Special:Contributions/Namsos - inactive 2 weeks
- Special:Contributions/Nepaheshgar - inactive 3 days, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Khoikhoi, Larno Man and Raayen (read from the bottom up).
- Special:Contributions/Nokhodi - inactive 1 week
- Special:Contributions/Persian_Magi - inactive 1 week
- Special:Contributions/Raayen - series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Larno Man and Khoikhoi (read from the bottom up).
- Special:Contributions/Sakis79 - inactive 2 weeks
- Special:Contributions/Samir - admin account, inactive 13 months (!)
- Special:Contributions/VectorField - inactive 2 weeks, does not meet 150 edit threshold
There may well be more but I've been fairly conservative in adding to the list above. Note that this constitutes more than a quarter of all the votes against Jayvdb's candidacy, so it's a substantial proportion. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is this enough evidence for a CU to determine whether any are sockpuppets of a puppeteer? Also, this seems to be at least a straightforward example of meatpuppetry. S.D.D.J.Jameson 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the final decision is up to Jimbo, and he isn't hard and fast bound by the raw numbers. I've given Carcharoth a barnstar for his principled decision to step forward about questionable supports he recently received that might tip the balance of the seventh place finish. Suggest careful analysis of the voting patterns and a calm reasoned approach, with a detailed report of suspicious dealings. We assume good faith, yet aren't bound by it in face of evidence to the contrary. DurovaCharge! 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What I see at Image:ACE2008.jpg is a correlation between when Jayvdb voted against almost all of his fellow candidates and when his support level dropped off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think SandyGeorgia has a point here (that you may be reading too much into this). Note that the graph also shows a much more dramatic drop in support for Cool Hand Luke. A quick review of the voting page shows that this coincides with the anti-WR (what the heck is that?) block voting against him. Such are the vagaries of elections and, I'm sure, McCain would have been quite happy to see the votes of various members of various ethnic groups that had never voted before cancelled. But, that's not how it's done in the USA (or UK, or Australia, India, France, etc.) and that's not how it should be done on wikipedia. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- WR == Wikipedia Review. J.delanoygabsadds 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The big difference is that the votes motivated by anti-WR sentiment appear to followed on from Ryan Postlethwaite's public opposition to CHL's candidacy on the vote page on a matter directly relevant to the integrity of the ArbCom (see oppose vote #12 at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke)). In Jayvdb's case, a substantial number of the opposing votes appear to have been solicited from covert campaigning off-wiki among editors who share a particular, primarily Iranian nationalist, POV. One is above-board and relevant to the concerns of the election; the other constitutes grossly improper canvassing motivated by an ethnic nationalist agenda which has no place on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- WR == Wikipedia Review. J.delanoygabsadds 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If any candidate I have already supported (or indicated I would support but haven't yet done so) asks me to change my support of them to an oppose of them in order to counteract this sort of skewing that they consider unfair to other candidates, and to keep the relative standings properly balanced, I will do so (marking my oppose as an offsetting one done at request of the candidate I'm opposing). And... respect them a great deal to boot. It would send a strong message to those block voting that elections should be carried on the strength of the candidates, not on ethnic rivalries or BADSITES dramas. Anyone else willing to do so, or is this a crazy idea? ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll join you in that. DurovaCharge! 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) Thanks Lar and Durova, but I think this sends the wrong message. We need less political voting rather than more of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish. Considering Lar is a member of Wikipedia Review and I'm one of the people who's been most heavily targeted there, the spirit seemed distinctly apolitical. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured by doing it only if the CANDIDATE asks me to, (thus sacrificing a support they had in the bag) that it would send a message that the CANDIDATE was against bloc voting and was willing to sacrifice my support in order to make that point. I didn't see it as being political at all, but rather anti-political. But, as you wish... Except of course that other candidates are nevertheless free to so request, and I am free to so act. Look, I'm fine with people contacting others to influence them. In fact I have done so, and will continue to do so... and my User:Lar/ACE2008 is exactly that, my statement of my opinion. But my statements have always been more along the lines "this is why I think this candidate is worthy/concerning to me" not "we need to stop/advance this guy by marshalling as many bodies as we can"... ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is that this would twist the election to balance a second twist, and it adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity to the election.
- I am, however, comforted by the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his steeds. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured by doing it only if the CANDIDATE asks me to, (thus sacrificing a support they had in the bag) that it would send a message that the CANDIDATE was against bloc voting and was willing to sacrifice my support in order to make that point. I didn't see it as being political at all, but rather anti-political. But, as you wish... Except of course that other candidates are nevertheless free to so request, and I am free to so act. Look, I'm fine with people contacting others to influence them. In fact I have done so, and will continue to do so... and my User:Lar/ACE2008 is exactly that, my statement of my opinion. But my statements have always been more along the lines "this is why I think this candidate is worthy/concerning to me" not "we need to stop/advance this guy by marshalling as many bodies as we can"... ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish. Considering Lar is a member of Wikipedia Review and I'm one of the people who's been most heavily targeted there, the spirit seemed distinctly apolitical. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Barring clear evidence of outright canvassing or coordinated planning, eligible votes are eligible votes. I have myself cast tactical and anti-WR votes (which I may change at any time). If Armenian votes will come under scrutiny, we must also examine the influence of those dastardly Azeris. And where are the Jews coming down? Maybe they just have a better planned campaign, along with the crypto-Fascists. Not to mention the blatant and well-orchestrated pro-mainspace campaign. Elonka's graph may illustrate an anti-JohnV campaign, or it may illustrate an early pro-JohnV bias. Evidence please. Non-circumstantial evidence. Of course, Jayvdb should feel free to refute any suggestions of anti-Armenian bias and do so prominently, since there seems an obvious trendline. Franamax (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully my sarcastic bits will be evident in that. I'm not suggesting an additional Jewish conspiracy or any such-like. Just casting a wild eye. And I'm dead serious about John being free to make prominent refutations and to be supported in those efforts. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Franamax, both the tone and the content of that input is distinctly unhelpful. What happened here is that John Vandenberg posted an evidence presentation in user space regarding a divisive arbitration case.[36] Then, within hours, a number of dormant accounts from one side of that dispute showed up to oppose him. It's a sitution that deserves concern and attention. I hope a good faith explanation fully explains it, but sarcasm is uncalled for. If it's an attempt at humor it's misplaced. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- True enough that my commentary can often be elliptical, hence my hastily-added smallprint disclaimer, which would apply to roughly four of my sentences. Sarcasm is not often welcome but is sometimes helpful. In this case, it was intended to contrast the putatively "known" nature of vote manipulation against the equally possible "unknown" manipulations. Given the nature of the AA conflict, that is in fact a real possibility which has not been explored (and would largely depend on whether Jayvdb is in fact an Azeri supporter, for which there is no evidence whatsoever - but we're thin on evidence at all right now). As to the precise evidence you cite for causality, I don't read the timelines the same way. I see (and have seen for quite some time) a fall in JV's support level, but I see no correlation with his userpage that you cite as a causative factor. I don't deny that there is some causative factor, in fact I suspect there is one. My point is that barring some "smoking gun" evidence, either all votes must stand, or we must now examine all votes for bias (evidence of which is amply to be found). We can't just act on the most convenient case. I agree that it's a serious concern. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Franamax, both the tone and the content of that input is distinctly unhelpful. What happened here is that John Vandenberg posted an evidence presentation in user space regarding a divisive arbitration case.[36] Then, within hours, a number of dormant accounts from one side of that dispute showed up to oppose him. It's a sitution that deserves concern and attention. I hope a good faith explanation fully explains it, but sarcasm is uncalled for. If it's an attempt at humor it's misplaced. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record, it's not "my" graph. It's created by ST47 (talk · contribs), who also deserves the credit for some of the other automated utilities that are generating election data. I was the first to bring it up in the thread, but he deserves the credit for creating it. :) --Elonka 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully my sarcastic bits will be evident in that. I'm not suggesting an additional Jewish conspiracy or any such-like. Just casting a wild eye. And I'm dead serious about John being free to make prominent refutations and to be supported in those efforts. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've never been clear on what qualifies as canvassing and what doesn't. Would it include, for example, a request by a candidate for her supporters to email their friends who are opposing the candidate and try to sway them? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's canvassing, yes, but it's not "bad" canvassing. "bad" is "do as I say because we're a bloc" which is what the circumstantial evidence (truncated scale or not... the really strong stuff is the pattern of voter after voter doing the same thing) seems to suggest is going on here. Full disclosure, I've done just the sort of thing SBHB is referring to... mail people I already have a relationship with and ask them if I can try to persuade them, or if they'd rather I left them be. I don't see anything wrong with it. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. To me the indignation over canvassing is too often like that scene in Casablanca where Inspector Reynaud shuts down Rick's Cafe because there's gambling going on, and then the croupier hands the Inspector his night's winnings... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have voted for Jayvdb, but I nevertheless have to ask: Exactly what rule is being violated by what these voters have allegedly done? WP:CANVASS applies to discussions. This isn't a discussion, it is an election. Campaigning is permitted, and in fact, campaigning for and against numerous candidates has been going on in a variety of ways. I wish this were not happening to Jayvdb, but I don't see why it is being singled out for special attention. In looking at the votes for and against various candidates, I have seen a number of votes being cast for what I believe are the wrong reasons, including candidates being voted against because they are not part of the "right" administrative clique, or because in the past they have defended other editors who the voter doesn't like, or in some cases because they are not administrators at all, or for a variety of other reasons. But this is an election. People are allowed to vote for their own reasons. There are, I assume, thousands of editors eligible to vote in this election, a small minority of whom will actually vote. If a dozen, or a few dozen, can sway the election, that's because the non-voting majority is basically allowing them to do so. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quick statistics note! - since people are hinting at it without quite spelling it out, some clarification: it should be pointed out while the graph is a pretty obvious evidence of steep dropoff in support, there's no clear way to demonstrate from the graph itself that the drop is due to the voting bloc (which I believe is a real issue, but as pointed about above who's to say more shadowy cabals aren't in effect as well.) It could be as Sandy described a reaction to the candidate's own votes, or it could be a natural trend due to early supporters flocking to support the candidate; the last two are, in conjunction with evidence provided above, seemingly less likely than our conspiracy point presented, but never accept graphic representations at face value; they can be easily manipulated, unwittingly or by design. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can we add onto the graph dots showing when each of the possible canvassed votes occurred? If they correspond to a substantial fraction of the drop off then that's strong evidence. Also keep in mind that humans are social animals. Someone on the fence might be more willing to oppose if they see many incoming oppose votes. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The argument that this campaigning is somehow especially problematic is not obviously born out. I've seen multiple off-site public endorsements of candidates for one reason or another. I suspect that one issue here might be that we see this as more negative because it aimed against someone rather than for someone and is also very clearly connected to a specific POV and ethnic identity. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would add a handful to the list, all of whom show 1) voting against Jaybdb, and 2) block voting for all or almost all of the other top candidates, and 3) no sign of individual evaluation of other candidates. Several also show on their userpage 4) an indication of connection to, language skill for, or regular editing in the region of concern.
- Special:Contributions/Babakexorramdin (also, is the redirection of his user page to an "account" with no edits appropriate?)
- Special:Contributions/CreazySuit
- Special:Contributions/Node ue
- Special:Contributions/Tajik
- Special:Contributions/Zereshk
The most recent of these is more recent than ChrisO's list above. GRBerry 05:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had thought the same re the Babake... account btw when I saw it yesterday. The language skill of some of the editors actually does make me wonder what they are doing here in a wider sense, too - not that I discourage cross wiki editing but I wonder if they are here to further cases from other environments in this space after looking at their contribs. Orderinchaos 07:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict is just the starting-point here. This isn't just about Nagorno-Karabakh. There simply aren't enough Armenian editors to make a substantial difference by themselves. But consider that most of the world's Azeris live in Iran, where they form a large minority (25% plus?), and that there has been ethnic conflict between Iranian Azeris and "Persians" in recent years (see this for example) and you have your explanation why the large "Persian ethnic block" on Wikipedia has been mobilised against John, who is apparently believed to be some kind of Azeri agent. Make it into a wider "anti-Turkic" campaign and you can throw in a few Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldaeans (Ottoman genocide against the Assyrians), Greeks and Central Asians (Tajiks etc.). --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the presence of the "Persian block" is highly obvious. I know from previous experience with these people that quite a few of them are highly activist, see Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their nationalist POVs, work as a semi-organised team (votestacking on AfD etc) and are rabidly hostile towards anyone who stands in their way. They will no doubt end up in an omnibus arbitration case some day. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've done a rough count and there are at least 15 "Persian" Iranian opposes (including two disqualified votes) and maybe more, compared to eight Armenians. Whether or not John has been "biased" on this issue I have no idea - I haven't voted and I'd have to investigate first. I've been accused of being both "pro-Armenian" (Armenian genocide, ASALA stuff) and "pro-Turkic" (17th and 18th century Iranian history). From my experience editing the latter, I know that the internal Iranian Azeri-Persian conflict is one of the biggest, yet least noticed, disputes on Wikipedia. Actually, it's part of an even wider Iranic-Turkic conflict which involves much of Western and Central Asia (and bits of Europe) and brings in some of the looniest ethnic chauvinists imaginable (check out the Pan-Turanists for starters).--Folantin (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A conservative count of opposers involved in this 35 so far. There are another 10 who I wouldnt like to say are involved in it, and three or four who are definitely not, but are concerned due to the concerns of the other opposers. I have done a lot of work in this topical area - for and against all sides (yes, some Mac/Greek and Turk too; as you can imagine, I'm looking forward to their votes), but they only remember the bad. Those that have opposed for nationalistic reasons will not change their votes, so at most I can convince 13 voters that the claims against me are false. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've done a rough count and there are at least 15 "Persian" Iranian opposes (including two disqualified votes) and maybe more, compared to eight Armenians. Whether or not John has been "biased" on this issue I have no idea - I haven't voted and I'd have to investigate first. I've been accused of being both "pro-Armenian" (Armenian genocide, ASALA stuff) and "pro-Turkic" (17th and 18th century Iranian history). From my experience editing the latter, I know that the internal Iranian Azeri-Persian conflict is one of the biggest, yet least noticed, disputes on Wikipedia. Actually, it's part of an even wider Iranic-Turkic conflict which involves much of Western and Central Asia (and bits of Europe) and brings in some of the looniest ethnic chauvinists imaginable (check out the Pan-Turanists for starters).--Folantin (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Check emails?
This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ouch!! How intrusive is that? Where was that capability announced? You're basically saying that I can never again put substantive content into an email sent from the Wikipedia mail function. All I can do now is send "email me", and even then at risk of some external determination that I've done wrong. No thanks, I guess I'll just have to publish my email address on my userpage. That's a horrible, horrible suggestion (no offense :). Franamax (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was added a few months ago and was announced. See the disclaimer when you use an email. "A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form." If I'm reading that correctly devs can check who emailed whom. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just tested it by sending you an email :) In any case, for the purposes you discuss, the capability seems to be only in the hands of the devs, who would hopefully define "abuse" by a higher standard than simply verifying which recipients were the target of an email. To me, that doesn't constitute "abuse" - whereas a single editor being the target of multiple incoming mails, reported as abusive by the recipient, certainly would. Mere traffic indicates nothing, if it does, I just roped you into my conspiracy :) Franamax (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- CU's have this capability. I'm not yet seeing anything like a compelling reason to check emails sent for these users. It's intended to allow us to trace users who are harassing via email, not merely communicating. (even if you think this is ethnic block voting, setting it up is "merely communicating") I think running this check would have a chilling effect and would strongly advocate (absent more information making a compelling case) not doing so. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the checkuser tables contain the information "Sent email to user:fdc7c2c81383ebda241" where "fdc7c2c81383ebda241" is a hashed value for the recipient's name. So we could, for example, determine how many emails were sent by User:Smith but not to whom they were sent or their contents. Thatcher 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- CU's have this capability. I'm not yet seeing anything like a compelling reason to check emails sent for these users. It's intended to allow us to trace users who are harassing via email, not merely communicating. (even if you think this is ethnic block voting, setting it up is "merely communicating") I think running this check would have a chilling effect and would strongly advocate (absent more information making a compelling case) not doing so. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just tested it by sending you an email :) In any case, for the purposes you discuss, the capability seems to be only in the hands of the devs, who would hopefully define "abuse" by a higher standard than simply verifying which recipients were the target of an email. To me, that doesn't constitute "abuse" - whereas a single editor being the target of multiple incoming mails, reported as abusive by the recipient, certainly would. Mere traffic indicates nothing, if it does, I just roped you into my conspiracy :) Franamax (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was added a few months ago and was announced. See the disclaimer when you use an email. "A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form." If I'm reading that correctly devs can check who emailed whom. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Lesson for next year
I think this shows that ArbCom elections should be by secret ballot like what is used for WMF positions. It won't necessarily restrict canvassing, but it will make it harder for voting blocks to game the system. Also, it will help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments at CHL's page. If secret voting is used, it's important, of course, to post the final numbers once voting has closed so that everyone can see the results before Jimbo ratifies it. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Um come again? This makes canvassing easier because people will be less likely to notice the patterns. We would have no idea any of this was going on were it not public. This is like saying "we have a problem. Let's solve it by next time sticking our heads in the sand." JoshuaZ (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? There's no way for us to prove and take action against off-wiki canvassing unless everyone involved suddenly has an attack of conscious and comes forward and says, "Hey! I was canvassed by email!". There is no way to prevent off-wiki canvassing, even if we notice the clues that it is going on. Instead, we can make it more difficult to effect the overall results. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't make it more difficult to effect the overall results. Quite the opposite. This way, when we notice signs of it we can compile evidence and present it to Jimbo. If it we just had access to vote tallies that wouldn't be possible. How do you think that secret voting would make canvassing more difficult? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cla68, your reasoning mirrors some suggestions that have been put forward at WT:RFA several times in the past. It's always been shot down there, too. The thing is, even if the votes themselves were secret, there would still be a talk page for discussion of the candidate. So maybe someone posts something negative to the discussion. You'll still get "pile-on" opposes, it just won't be visible to anyone except Jimbo. I agree with JoshuaZ, that making things less transparent only makes it harder to fight misbehavior. Yes, some of it will go on regardless, but we should be making it easier to see the problems, not harder.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've already busted my quota for posting on admin pages, but I'll make one more suggestion. Can we declare a moratorium on the discussions of adopting secret ballots until Feb. 1, 2009? This has come up on the Talk:Vote page too. I really think the debate should wait until present circumstances can have the benefit of some distance in time. Proper lessons should be drawn, rather than immediate reaction to events. I'll try hard to stop posting now. :) Franamax (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that's a good point by Joshua and the rest that making the voting visible may serve as a deterrent for pile-on voting or vote canvassing. The problem is, however, that it still seems to go on way too much. I still think secret voting is preferable, for another reason that it helps make people comfortable to vote for or against whoever they want to without it being secretly held against them, but I'll hold off advocating it further until it is discussed again in the appropriate forum. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The simplest solution to both problems is to have a election where people only have as many support votes as there are seats available. Then there is no problem with the election being held in secret, as everyone must choose who they want to sit on arbcom, rather than play games with oppose votes. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that's a good point by Joshua and the rest that making the voting visible may serve as a deterrent for pile-on voting or vote canvassing. The problem is, however, that it still seems to go on way too much. I still think secret voting is preferable, for another reason that it helps make people comfortable to vote for or against whoever they want to without it being secretly held against them, but I'll hold off advocating it further until it is discussed again in the appropriate forum. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've already busted my quota for posting on admin pages, but I'll make one more suggestion. Can we declare a moratorium on the discussions of adopting secret ballots until Feb. 1, 2009? This has come up on the Talk:Vote page too. I really think the debate should wait until present circumstances can have the benefit of some distance in time. Proper lessons should be drawn, rather than immediate reaction to events. I'll try hard to stop posting now. :) Franamax (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Potential alternate explanation
A potential alternate explanation was raised above (I think by Sandy), that I believe has some merit. I had been considering voting for Jay in the initial phases of the election, and hadn't been even considering opposing his candidacy. But then, for some reason, he began opposing a large majority of his fellow candidates. I didn't like what this seemed to reveal, and chose to vote as a weak oppose. If others who felt as I did voted the same way, that could explain to some extent what happened. I'd be curious as to how many people cited that in their oppose, versus the AA thing. S.D.D.J.Jameson 12:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There certainly seems to be an element of that as well, although a large number of Armenian and Persian editors showing up at the same time to protest against Jayvdb's powervoting seems an awfully big coincidence to me. Ethnic vote-stacking probably can't explain all of the decline, but it can probably explain enough of it to alter the outcome of the election. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
- "I'd be curious as to how many people cited that in their oppose". My count gives about 10 voters who expressed concerns about this. That's about 12% of the oppose vote. If John's "conservative estimate of opposers involved [as part of the "ethnic block vote]" of 35 is correct, then that's 43% of the oppose vote. Just to give you a rough idea (I can't vouch for my maths and if anyone wants to improve on this, go ahead). --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A large proportion of the users of concern give no reasons for their opposition to Jay, nor for their support for others. Evaluating the reason given is only useful for those who gave a reason. GRBerry 15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "I'd be curious as to how many people cited that in their oppose". My count gives about 10 voters who expressed concerns about this. That's about 12% of the oppose vote. If John's "conservative estimate of opposers involved [as part of the "ethnic block vote]" of 35 is correct, then that's 43% of the oppose vote. Just to give you a rough idea (I can't vouch for my maths and if anyone wants to improve on this, go ahead). --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is all very interesting from an academic perspective but what are we supposed to so? Voting blocs exist and always will. So? Aside from some wild speculations about checking who sent what emails to whom there is nothing that can be done at this point except to continue squandering elections. I voted for John but I really don't see anything remotely actionable. JodyB talk 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "What are we supposed to do?" Probably not a lot. Maybe we could add the ACE equivalent of those anti-canvassing templates you sometimes see on RfAs. "Ethnic blocs" usually counterbalance each other in elections, so you'd expect a load of Azeri/Turkic editors to turn up and give John the thumbs-up just to spite the Armenians and the Persians. So far, they haven't. Maybe there's been a power failure in Baku and Tabriz or maybe John isn't quite the secret pro-Azeri agent he's alleged to be. --Folantin (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hersfold Non-Admin & Co.
What's the point in having alternative accounts when they just end up stopping being used? For example, Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has the said account and La Pianista (talk · contribs) has La Sockista (talk · contribs). I would like to see more alternative account usage please, preferrably in rollback. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- What? I could see forbidding rollback to anyone with alternate accounts, but I can't imagine a good reason to encourage rollbackers to have alternate accounts.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. I mean they could be used more often, like when they're on public computers. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is this thread about?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Public accounts. If someone is working from a public computer, it is necessary, but not required, to use an alternative account to prevent the risk of compromization by hackers. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I have both AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) and AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs). I prefer not to sign in with my admin account when using a less than secure connection (like from my BlackBerry). Both accounts have rollback, but that's more of a convenience issue than anything. - auburnpilot's sock 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c with AuburnPilot)Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the policy. Alternate accounts are generally discouraged. They are tolerated for the reasons listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. For reasons of transparency, we would prefer that all editors keep all of their edits under the same name. While some of us (I use User:Aervasock) do choose to access Wikipedia through a non-privileged account when not on our home computer, that is certainly not a mandate, nor even a suggestion. It's just an allowable option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have User:Orderinchaos 2 as an AWB account. It means that my edits on my main account, with which I have admin access, are more readily open to scrutiny without people having to wade through uncontroversial semi-auto edits. Orderinchaos 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of your giant flamboyant signature? John Reaves 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Move war
Please help monitor the move war at Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh. Despite a failed move request, the article has been moved back and forth over the past few days. Aecis·(away) talk 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TFA Image
Unless I'm mistaken, Image:Zappa 16011977 01 300.jpg, which is on the Main Page, wasn't protected until I uploaded a local copy just now (it's now cascade-protected). I could be missing something, but there was no local copy previously, the image isn't protected at Commons, and yesterday's TFA image was protected this way, so apparently something hasn't changed on me and made doing this no longer necessary. It would be nice to have an adminbot to do this, as I'm not really fond of seeing various anatomical images when I start up my Web browser. If I did unknowingly screw something up, please tell me. —Slowking Man (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, now I'm seeing that other Main Page images aren't explicitly protected either, so I'm obviously missing something. Someone mind linking me to the software change or whatever it is? —Slowking Man (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Images in English Wikipedia no longer need protection before appearing on MainPage due to cascading protection. Cascading protection does not apply to images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons. This means that the images still need to be protected manually by an administrator on the Commons project, or uploaded to English Wikipedia to allow the cascading protection to work. User:Zzyzx11 used to protect MainPage images at WCommons. He stopped when User:MPUploadBot was inaugurated. However, User:MPUploadBot was blocked a few weeks ago. Since then, various MainPage Mopsters (most often it's User:BorgQueen, sometimes me and others...) have been manually uploading and protecting WCommons images when (or before) they appear on MainPage. No clue when User:MPUploadBot will be unblocked. So, if you see any WCommons images on MainPage, please make sure that they are {{C-uploaded}} to English Wikipedia. If not, cascading can only protect local edits, such as cats and FP templates, and vandals can upload junk at WCommons to spoil our MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Halfricans
I have just speedy deleted Category:Halfricans as an attack page, because as the category page itself noted[37], the term is exclusively used to disparage its subject (people of half-African American descent). As another user noted, we wouldn't support Category:Uncle Toms or Category:Feminazi, and this seems to have some characteristics of those.
The speedy deletion seemed appropriate as the "general" criteria specifically apply all namespaces including categories. However I appreciate the speedy deletion of categories is rare, and this particular category may well be controversial. I've therefore brought this here for review, and am happy for it to be overturned if I've misinterpreted the policy. Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good call as far as I am concerned. Did you comment to the creator? JodyB talk 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. G10 == General, not namespace specific. We can speedy delete from any namespace if the item in question is something nasty. Good call on this category. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't comment to the creator (User:Kilby6), but another editor has warned them about creating attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not convinced it was really an attack page per se. I suspect he intended to create a category for Limbaughisms. In any case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB talk 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- But see which articles were put in it. By all means WP:AGF that it wasn't meant as an attack, but it could be considered an attack and thus deletion was fine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not convinced it was really an attack page per se. I suspect he intended to create a category for Limbaughisms. In any case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB talk 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't comment to the creator (User:Kilby6), but another editor has warned them about creating attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. G10 == General, not namespace specific. We can speedy delete from any namespace if the item in question is something nasty. Good call on this category. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Trouble with User:Sceptre - could an admin familiar with him please intervene?
Over the past few days Sceptre has been continuing in behavior similar to that which has resulted in him being disciplined in that past, and as I'm not an admin and have been in personal conflicts with him before, I'd prefer not to get directly involved with him myself, but rather let an admin who's had more experience dealing with him take care of this. On the Osama Bin Laden article, he's been unilaterally removing sources from the article which cite individuals or groups that have referred to Bin Laden as a terrorist, claiming that the article calling him a terrorist is a violation of WP:BLP, and yelling at other users in his edit summaries such as here and here. (Nevertheless he's incorrect about the article factually stating that Bin Laden is a terrorist, as it only reads that certain groups/individuals have referred to him as one and cites sources to back these claims up.) I posted a comment about this on the article's talk page claiming that it seemed like he is trying to cause drama for drama's sake and is essentially acting like he owns the article by giving his own opinion on it more merit than the current consensus. In response, he accused me of "wikistalking" him (just as he's accused me and many other users of in the past, including one other user whom he edited warred with over this article, though just to be fair, the user did facetiously call him a "terrorist sympathizer" right before, which was also uncalled for). I'd personally like to stay out of this one since I've been in a few ugly conflicts with him before, but I think his behavior is uncalled for and is strongly reminiscent of the behavior with had him recently blocked for three months in the first place. If he keeps going on like this, I won't be surprised (or sorry) to see him blocked again, though this time I'd like to see him wait the block out, as it was rescended a few weeks before its expiration (which I thought was unfair considering that even while blocked, he continued to engage on his talk page in the same disruptive behavior that had him blocked in the first place, though that's ancient history so I won't go into it further.)--ParisianBlade (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)Without wanting to go into the shouting, which is unfortunate, Sceptre does have a point in that use of the word "terrorist" is discouraged. Wikipedia:Words to avoid says:
- "The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article."
- It should also be noted that this directive is the subject of a slow-burning debate on the related talk page, but there does not appear to be any consensus to overturn it at this point. Now, if anyone can be referred to as a terrorist, it's OBL, but Sceptre's edits, as far as I can see, are not unduly disruptive or incorrect, and in some cases are an improvement (such as changing "terrorist" to the more specific "jihadist"). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
- Words to avoid doesn't apply here - it's not being used in the unqualified narrative - a sourced reference to say that intepol and other law enforcement agencies have him listed as a terrorist is just that - a sourced reference outlining the position of those organisations. If they were writing "the terrorist Bin Laden" he might have a point (which I cannot find in the history). Leaving aside the content issues, What I cannot take in good faith are comments like Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? ? Are we now allowed to make backhanded slurs on other editors as sexual predators? Sceptre wants to call notice to his status as a minor - great, he should go and sit in the naughty corner for a bit until he grows up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for the content dispute itself, I haven't been keeping up with it on a regular basis and it wasn't my main concern. My main concern was the immature way that Sceptre is going about participating in the dispute (the yelling in edit summaries; the accusations of "wikistalking) which I think is very inappropriate. The dispute itself may actually be legitimate, but if so Sceptre should behave as an adult if he expects to be treated like one in my view.--ParisianBlade (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Words to avoid doesn't apply here - it's not being used in the unqualified narrative - a sourced reference to say that intepol and other law enforcement agencies have him listed as a terrorist is just that - a sourced reference outlining the position of those organisations. If they were writing "the terrorist Bin Laden" he might have a point (which I cannot find in the history). Leaving aside the content issues, What I cannot take in good faith are comments like Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? ? Are we now allowed to make backhanded slurs on other editors as sexual predators? Sceptre wants to call notice to his status as a minor - great, he should go and sit in the naughty corner for a bit until he grows up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Err...I'm pretty sure these shouldn't be in the main article space... CultureDrone (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)