Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Ashkenazi Intelligence

I believe that this article warrants a "speedy deletion" because it is about one journal article presenting a fringe theory. I am not sure that this "theory" would meet our criteria for includion in another article, given that it is a fringe theory with one source. It definitely is not significant enough to merit an article. I smell POV forking.

I have been involved in content disputes concerning a related article, Race and intelligence, and do not think it ould be appropriate for me to make the decision to delete, or to delete it, as some may consider me biased. I'd appreciate others looking into it and seeing if it really does meet the criteria. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is a fork, it is one of some 30 months existence; I therefore do not think a speedy delete is an option. Given the circumstances, perhaps it should go to AFD? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Article was Nominated for deletion back in Feb 2007, the result then was "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

After such a time, since it is still relying on the one source and it appears that there are still no other references available, perhaps it is time again to nominate it for AFD - and as that is a discussion/consensus based procedure then there is no bar on Slrubenstein nominating it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if someone else (working on the page) agrees it merits a nomination for deletion we will go that route. Thanks for the feedback, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed and went nowhere. The underlying feeling was that it merited an article because there exists adequate numbers of news articles and references to warrant it. Recent criticism, besides Slrubenstein's, was based on the mistaken belief that the article was on the intelligence of the Ashkenazis (and not on the fringe theory) and therefor needed to be expanded or re-named. That didn't constitute a dispute. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you are saying the article is on a "fringe theory?" And that is not a POV fork how? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not dispute resolution, it is a discussion on whether the article satisfies WP's notability guidelines - and this discussion belongs there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, well, they demonstrably have intelligence. It has been measured and compared to that of other groups. There have been numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject. What is is the issue here? Edison (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

C4v3m4n's Contest Page

Is this acceptable? Note that on Oct 22, C4v3m4n spammed invitations to this "contest page" to the talk pages of some 30 editors. I don't know if this violates any specific policy, but I do know that I don't like it. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• You probably won't like Wikipedia:Reward board or Wikipedia:Bounty board, either. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those don't bother me. I'm not keen on users setting up things like this privately, and I'm particularly not keen on any sort of spamming. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If we see dubious nominations at FAC, I suppose we will address it. However, it should be known that FAs are promoted because the articles (should) reflect the most comprehensive and authoritative sources available on the subject. Any articles on moustaches or facial hair, or anything really, are allowed, but what concerns me is the extra points for originality of content. That suggest WP:SYNTH. If an editor does proper research, the content should not be original in the sense that it has never been seen before, just brilliantly written. It would help if C4v3m4n became involved with reviewing FACs in preparation for this endeavor to better guide participants. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And you probably don't like this contest by WikiProject Military history either. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the contest. Not thrilled about spamming 30 people about it. Looie, besides the spamming, what is it about the contest that bothers you? Seems like a case of sticking our collective noses in where they aren't needed; am I missing something fundamental here? --barneca (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a bad idea for users to be setting up public functionality in their private space. It's bound to get out of control. Anything in user-space that creates a need to advertise is going to be a problem. Doing things like this in Wikipedia space or WikiProject space is a whole different story -- that's public functionality in a public place. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter what title the page has ? If it's behaving like a project page, we'll treat it like a project page, if it "all gets out of hand", but at the moment, I see no problem with the page. Nick (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All that Wikipedia public functionality started out as someone or other's private idea. Even something as fundamental to today's Wikipedia as the Manual of Style was originally one guy's little scheme (which some of us ignored until it was no longer possible). But that's the way it has always worked on Wikipedia. People try stuff out. If enough people think that the stuff is a good idea it endures and possibly gets shifted to the Wikipedia namespace -- otherwise it doesn't. And that's the way it should be. It'll be a sad day when we have to Seek Official Sanction before doing anything new. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Shrik88music

Resolved

 – blocked by Jayron32.talk.contribs one month for edit warring

Can an admin please re-re-review the activities of this user. They have now been blocked twice for edit warring and reinstatement of FAN/POV material (see here), and have apparently tried to reinstate the material using an anonymous IP account here, and the first thing they do when the block expires is to reinstate the same sort of material in Rajesh Khanna ([1]) and Bewafai ([2]). Whilst I appreciate that they may be enthusiastic about this actor, I believe adding this sort of material is not in line with WP's policies on neutrality, POV, FAN etc. I don't know if this technically counts as vandalism, but I'd appreciate some feedback/intervention etc. by an admin. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I reblocked him for 1 month this time. The user is clearly edit warring. They are aware that their edits are in dispute, and yet they made them immediately after the last block expired. If the problem returns once the next block expires, please re-report them, and an administrator will take appropriate action.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted content

User:Leonapedia has re-created Leona Lewis on The X Factor after it was deleted earlier this year, here in his namespace. Is this allowed? Dalejenkins | 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, userfying of deleted articles to give the author a chance to work on it and bring it to a point where it will overcome the reasons for deletion is a common practice. So as a general thing, this is not a bad thing. In the specifics of the specific case, though, the purpose of this userification does not appear to be to allow for improvement, but rather to get around the AFD. So in this particular case I would say this would be a good candidate for A4 G4 - Recreation speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the last edit message implying the purpose of the page was to dodge the AFD result, and the lack of any improving edits in the months since, I've gone ahead and tagged it for G4 deletion. This'll let an additional admin be the final judge on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That the editor hasn't sought to improve the article in nearly five months doesn't give me any confidence that this is his intention, and it's toast. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be undeleted as a matter of courtesy to the user. Articles created in good faith but subsequently deleted through AfD are commonly preserved in userspace; I have several such pages in my userspace, and I haven't edited them for years. I also don't understand why this article was deleted and not simply redirected to Leona Lewis with the history intact. Everyking (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Check your facts first. I made the page in my userspace after it went up for deletion the first time, but was saved. I guessed they were going to come for it again, so I made a copy I could work on in my userspace. There seemed at the time a concerted effort to get rid of it by certain editors; despite saying in the second AFD that they would merge with the main article, no part of it got put into the main article and much valuable information was lost. So I was right to save a copy to my userspace. And thank-you, Everyking. Courtesy has been distinctly lacking in my case - facts have not been checked and no-one even visited my page to tell me they were deleting one of my user pages, which as Everyking says, can be left quite happily. No-one bothered to tell me of the two AFDs on my userpage either. As Everyking says, I made the article in good faith, and I spent a very long time on it. I feel like I have been right royally shafted here. Leonapedia 86.143.70.84 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. As I see it, you have two options. 1) persuade User:Rodhullandemu to reverse himself, and/or 2) WP:DRV protest the deletion. I've also removed the resolved tag for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Not a direct legal threat as such, but this edit, made on User Talk:G2bambino by a user who has been broadly supportive of that user in a long running and acrimonious dispute with User:Roux appears to be fanning the flames towards a legal threat. Not sure what (if anything) should be done here. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I could be missing something, but I hesitate to call that a clear legal threat. Iffy, sure, but I'd rather hesitate to block over that sort of vague statement, absent a pattern of some sort, or something else to suggest a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless User:Gavin Scott is out chasing ambulances on wiki, I've no idea what that about. It does not seem in the least threatening.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Scott is clearly baiting G2bambino, whom has been blocked for legal threats before. A warning would be in order. Tiptoety ^talk 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Amended: Ooops, he has not been blocked for legal threats before, I was thinking of another user. Tiptoety ^talk 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat? I don't see it. It's just a joke, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it is not a legal threat, but I am not sure it is constructive. Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's meant to bait G2bambino. Afterall, Gavin is supporting G2 and/or opposing Roux (which ever ya choose). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A legal threat is where someone indicates that they have initiated, or intend to initiate, legal action, or where they clearly threaten another user with legal action. Most things that are ambiguous are not legal threats. Indeed we get very few realistic legal threats on wikipedia. Most times that we block someone for legal threats, we could equally have blocked them for trolling and disruption.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about what has transpired here and quite frankly, I am taking the fifth! If any action is to be taken I would like an admin to explain to me what I did wrong and advise me on what I should do. Gavin (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like heavy sarcasm. Annoying but not anything that needs official action unless there's more to the history than this. -Nard 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting articles

Forgive me if this is a daft question, but is it possible to have an article's history split in to two? I want to do some cleanup at List of Presidents of North Korea, and have been digging through the history of the article: on 3 Feb this year the article went from this to this. What I'd like to do is have the earlier revision as List of heads of state of North Korea, and the newer version as President of North Korea, preferably keeping the relevant bits of history with each article. Is this possible or not? PC78 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While merging two histories is easy (via WP:HISTMERGE), splitting an article's edit history is ... extremely challenging and not generally worth the effort. Given the short amount of content on the page, just go ahead and fix it up. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information, splitting histories involves:

1. Deleting the page
2. Identifying and restoring all revisions related to page 2
3. Moving these revisions away
4. Restore all other relevant revisions (some times there may be revisions which have previously been deleted - don't restore those)
5. Rollback the redirect caused by the move in step 3

Not worth the effort. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Planning ahead for U.S. elections on Nov. 4

It would be prudent to plan ahead for the U.S. elections on Nov. 4. The U.S. election has already spawned one arbitration case, and it would be nice to avoid a second one. We have had some limited success with things like the last Harry Potter release, which we can can think back to for ideas. I remember the main issue with H.P. was unsourced or poorly-sourced info being added before the official release. The difficulty was convincing editors to be patient and wait for news reports that can be used.

One idea I have brainstormed with some fellow editors is: find some neutral admins who will volunteer to be "custodians" on Nov 4. We could reassure them they can use their normal discretion to protect election-related articles for short periods of time (the crunch period will probably be less than 24 hours) if it becomes too difficult to manage articles by normal editing. Ideally these would be non-U.S. admins who have not been involved in the election articles in the past.

I'm hoping to start a discussion here, well in advance, to let us talk over the issues that we already can predict will occur, to try to reduce tension on Nov. 4. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we add to the sitenotice "Wikipedia reminds our American readers to vote" for that day? DS (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Planning ahead is an excellent idea, you can't be too prepared for anything, although the custodian idea seems a bit unnecessary, all admins should be neutral about things like this. As for the sitenotice, Why?--Jac16888 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty in just saying "all admins watch out" is that too often everyone assumes someone else is doing it. This was a problem that Kelly complained about during the Palin incident - that there was a lack of neutral admins watching the affected articles. And who can blame them - it takes a lot of effort to be patient with new editors on controversial topics. So having a short list of admins who have already agreed to watch the articles would be great. We don't need to go through some nomination process- they can just leave a note here that they will be watching. The other thing that should be discussed is: how tolerant are we of short periods of protection until the election results come out. That issue is easier to talk about when we have the luxury of time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a decent enough idea, and if you tell me which articles to watch I'd be happy to help, for the record I'm English and have no idea who Joe the plumber is. As for protection of related articles, that could be tricky to manage, I imagine that the articles are going to attract a lot of new editors, some wanting to help, but a lot wanting to vandalise. Perhaps it would be a good idea to use short protection times, like an hour or so, just to head off any continuous attacks while keeping the articles open for as long as possible. It'll be interesting to see how this all goes down actually, wikipedia was a totally different place last election--Jac16888 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am willing to watch a list of articles when available (mainly after 5 p.m. ET, but will pop in during the course of the day); perhaps a page should be set up identifying the key articles. Some of them are obvious, but some might be less so, particularly to those of us outside the US. New page patrollers might also be needed to identify and nuke duplicate articles. Risker (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do some article patrol in the evening as well- I plan to be situated in front of the tv watching the news. So, I can patrol a page. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am often very active on Tuesdays, my class schedule being favorable for this. I'll try to get my homework done early so I can watch more. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the list of pages to watch, I would say that the pages listed on {{United States presidential election, 2008}} are probably enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around. Oppose the sitenotice bit though; America is not the world. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some elections going on in America? Gee.... you'd have thought there would have been a bit more media attention.... </sarcasm>. Excellent idea to plan now to get a few articles on various peoples watchlists - IOd Mishehu's recommendation seems ideal. Pedro :  Chat  12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And, for those who don't already know, you can use "related changes" to trak the changes to all the articles linked from that template: [3]. That may be easier than adding them all to your watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would totally support a full protection on all four candidates' articles and possibly the relevant election articles for that whole night. I just don't see any sort of productive edits coming in -- play-by-play state results, eager WP:CRYSTAL announcements, etc. All we'll need are the end results. Of course I know that pre-emptive protection is a no-no, but this might be an IAR case. What do people think about this? Would this get any kind of consensus? GlassCobra 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we could play an IAR card here but I think the message we send doing that is counter productive - Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia anyone can edit except on election night. I suppose if I actually cared less what the ex-colonies did I might be less biased...:). In seriousness, to be honest I'm not sure the harm that may come from "good faith but not very useful" edits is outwayed by our reputation as an open source and free to edit work during a time that will no doubt attract massive attention to the relevant articles. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the kerfluffles happen, stuff can be tweaked, undone or reverted as needed, meanwhile the project will likely pick up many new and helpful editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to set up a "public watchlist" for hot-button articles relating to the US elections that are likely to get hit by contentious edits or vandalism. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/publicwatchlist for an example that I set up a while ago; it's been a very useful tool. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker announced her intention to do that up above; hopefully the location of the watchlist for this will be named soon. It probably won't need to be that long -- the four candidates' articles, Public image of Barack Obama, Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, United States presidential election, 2008, United States presidential election, 2008 timeline, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Those are all that I can think of at the moment. GlassCobra 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably add 2008, George W. Bush, and related pages to catch overenthusiastic users "declaring" the winner ahead of anything official. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad ya mentioned the GWB article. There'll be alot of visitors changing the Infobox prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, as per Gwen Gale's comment above, that when the disruption gets significant that the articles get listed at WP:RFPP as per normal. That page may have the appearance of being a bit slow sometimes, but it is actually monitored frequently enough and also likely to pull in independent admins. Perhaps admins could make a special effort to monitor it at that time - all the pages are widely watchlisted by regular editors who know where RFPP is. I would suggest two more things: that the protections are kept relatively short, probably a few hours of full protection at most where necessary, and that no admin tries to pull any dramahtic 'special enforcement measures'. The protections are likely to go on and off by different admins over short periods of time, and this should be expected instead of being labelled a wheel war. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess we can add the Dick Cheney article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On a related note, it might be a good idea to place editnotices on some of the articles reminding editors that election day is not inauguration day and suggesting that proposed changes to templates such as {{Current U.S. Senators}} would be best placed on the talk pages of the articles. (No harm in preparing the code ahead of time, so long as it isn't used until inauguration). I'll create a few of the editnotices - for the template articles at least - if there aren't any objections. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

When your roommates vandalize the wiki

Resolved

 – until actual vandalism occurs there is nothing for the administrators to do here. Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I use a home network. One of my roommate has declared an intention to vandalize the wiki. I use only one account and never edit as an IP. Any sort of CU would come back to me. This particular roommate might smile at me, say they will not vandalize the wiki and then go ahead and do it. So- what can I do? Bstone (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser wouldn't be performed on an IP without a legitimate reason, vanldalism not being on. If they vandalize on an IP, there is no way for us to make that connection. Grsz^Review! 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If your IP is static you could get it blocked with the autoblock accounts option tuned off. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gotta give him a boilerplate warning first. "Hey roomie, welcome to Wikipedia. If you'd like to make an editing test, please use the sandbox. Otherwise, if I catch you vandalizing I'm going to hang you by your feet like a vandal-shaped piñata and beat you with a broomstick until candy falls out. Please contact me in my room if you have any questions." Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, Bullzeye, too funny! Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

TOV!!111! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is, zzzZZZ OMG ZZZzzz Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you find yourself getting caught in autoblocks or hard-blocks, apply for WP:IPEXEMPT. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest stealing his wallet or installing Cyber Nanny on his computer and block Wikipedia. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Slap him around a little bit. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with Hbdragon's suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We are using a Comcast cable modem. I don't know how long the IP lease is for, but it must change at least from time to time. Getting a static isn't an option unless I pay much more money. Bstone (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can always hijack his host file and set wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1.  :) Protonk (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Even after the lease expires, DHCP servers pretty much always renew the prior IP address to avoid router notifications, etc. —PētersV (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comcast cable internet? For all intents and purposes, your IP is static. --Carnildo (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless, I don't think that this will in the end turn out to be that much of a problem for you either way Bstone. If your roommate does vandalize against your objections, in this thread it has been noted by the administrators that you share an IP with a potential vandal and such will not be held against you; if you do end up blocked you can always apply for IP-block-exempt. Icewedge (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, should be fine in the long run. Autoblocks might be a problem, but those are easy enough to fix. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real question here is why do you tell people in your real life that you edit wikipedia. This is something we have to be ashamed of. Wikipedia isn't cool.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why the roommate is bragging about vandalizing. There's nothing funny or status worthy or social class worthy in vandalizing, at least in the conventional page-blanking, adding nonsense, sense. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes vandalizing wikipedia isn't cool, almost not as cool as telling people you edit it. Which is why I use a pseudonym.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know this is flamebait, but I'm personally proud of being a Wikipedia editor - I link it from my professional homepage and include it in my CV. Since when is spreading knowledge to the world something to be ashamed of? Dcoetzee 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Zero0000

Does anyone know what happened to User:Zero0000? He was an administrator I used to interact with fairly regularly. Although we never agreed I thought he was a very talented sysop. I recently found myself scrolling through his recent edits and realized that he edited everyday until a little more than a year ago. Particularly worrisome is his very last edit in which he indicated he was going overseas for a few days. Anyways I think at this point we have to assume he has passed away and that it is time to hand over his administrative powers over to someone else. I don't want to make any suggestions or anything but isn't it fair to assume that Zero would probably want one of his friends to have them? Again I'm not implying anything but I'm sure he would especially appreciate the person who actually noticed his absence.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately adminship is not a hereditary peerage, which would doubtless annoy my kids (a) were I to have any, and (b) if they turned out to be as geeky as me... _Gb^T/c 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was joking about the giving me his powers part, but I am actually really curious as to what may of happened to him. He was a cool guy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Email him using the "email this user" function from his user page, and consider adding his name to this page. _Gb^T/c 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

...cough, admin primogeniture, cough... KnightLago (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can just see somebody stalking and assassinating an admin in order to acquire his or her admin rights. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa Whoa, if you look in the French police report they eventually concluded that it was a random attack. They discounted the other evidence as circumstantial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion image backlog

Resolved

 – It's down to two images waiting for handling, at this point in time. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At CAT:CSD there is currently a backlog of images. It would be nice if someone can come and deal with them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. There're fewer admins who work on the images than on the pages. It gets pretty intimidating when there's 83 of 'em sittin' there, too. The image CSD are pretty straightforward, so feel free to tackle a bit of it if there's a problem in the future. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

JoeTimko

Resolved

 – Blocked indef as sock of Wallamoose, confirmed later by 2 CUs

A suspected sockpuppet of Wallamoose, JoeTimko is blocked indefinitely, but gives every appearance of wanting to improve articles. If he were unblocked, I'm willing to watch and reblock if necessary. I've asked the blocking admin if she has any problem with that (no reply yet), but this is new territory for me. How is this situation handled? Even if a checkuser found them to be the same, people sometimes improve their behavior. —EncMstr (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the history. On Oct 20, Wallamoose was blocked from editing even his own talk page. The JoeTimko account made its first edit on Oct 21. On Oct 27, the JoeTimko account posted an unblock request on Wallamoose's talk page. Why? What possible explanation is there? JoeTimko is free to explain this on his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts on this at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#JoeTimko. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In his latest post he more or less admits to being Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking. The issue is that there is currently a history of sockpuppetry. In order to support this unblock, the person in question would have to stop making new accounts or editing anonymously-via-IP for an extended period of time. We do unblock users who prove they are reformed, but creating a new account a few hours after the prior one was blocked is not reformation, it is flaunting the reasons for the block. If this person stops editing for a few months, and it can be shown that they have not created any accounts or otherwise tried to circumvent their original block, then we should allow them to operate one account in good faith. We have done this before, and it is the standard procedure. However, unblocking a repeat sockpuppeteer on his latest account on his "word" that he means to behave doesn't cut it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• At this point, I can't say I'd fully support an unblock either. The user doesn't really seem to be here to work constructively. Wallamoose and JoeTimko seem to be the same person, too. Unless this person just admits to socking and agrees not to do it again, I don't know that unblocking is wise. Still, EncMstr, if you're willing to keep an eye on the user, I'm not going to tell you that you can't unblock. I just think it's a waste of your time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is very good evidence for sockpuppetry. That aside, his recent edits were trying to be helpful, even though some are copyvios. I feel he could be a net positive, especially if someone (me) follows him around holding a revert button. However, I respect Jayron32's wisdom: given extended time off would encourage his emotional investment to fade into a more impartial editor in the future. —EncMstr (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

All undeclared sockpuppets, should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this unfold, and asked JoeTimko to explain himself, but all he does is evade a direct answer. Gwen Gale made a really good point during the discussions of a different (husband-wife meatpuppet) issue, that being the best course for folks like this is to simply fess up, apologize, and move on. Since blocks are preventative not punitive, there's no reason not to unblock when an apology and a promise of good behavior is made. However, in Joe's case, though see says he wants to edit and (presumably) behave well, he has resisted multiple opportunities to admit his transgressions, apologize and move on. With all that in mind, I don't feel comfortable with overturning the block. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite my better judgement, this user is adamant that he is not Wallamoose, and that it is a case of mistaken identity, and so I'm proposing that we consider ways of checking this. Is an SSP or RfCU appropriate at this time? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have misread his post. He did not deny in any way that he is Wallamoose, he only asserts that he is "User:JoeTimko" (still leaving wide open the question whether he is also "User:Wallamoose"). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser Raul has confirmed for me that JoeTimko is Wallamoose here - not a surprise, I know, but it means we can stop umming and ahhing about it. It is disappointing that JoeTimko/Wallamoose didn't simply 'fess up, since I might have advocated a return to editing otherwise. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, another CU came up with the same answer: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wallamoose Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, given his copy-pasting at Camp Treetops, all of his contribs will need to be checked for copyvios. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Marco Lazzara autobio

I just stumbled into the Marco Lazzara article. It has been on since October 2007 with User talk:Marcolazzara2 as a main contributor. In fact, the only edits this user ever made are to his own article. I just left him an autobio notice on his page, but don't know what else can/should be done. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as he stays out of editing it, I see no reason to delete, as there is decent referencing. However, since he's in all the images there, I question whether he is the actual copyright holder of them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why you felt a need to template the article, or what you expect anybody to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the images. I highly doubt that the images of him performing were "self made" and I'm sure that a professional took the mugshot that appears in the infobox. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All the photos say: "self made". Yeah, right. They are all professional or press. To answer above, I don't know what is gained by templating the article but it just feels wrong. And obviously lying on the photo copyrights to boot. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the template. Feel free to put it back if you also explain concretely what the user needs to do in order to satisfy you. It's unacceptable to template an article without stating explicitly what is unsatisfactory. Mere suspicions are not enough, because there is no way to resolve them. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U on G2bambino

I am requesting the outside comments of uninvolved admins at the RFCU on G2bambino. One user who was trying to help has removed himself from commenting; this needs to be addressed. Tiptoety has recommended that I seek outside comment, and one commenter has also requested that outside uninvolved admins comment on the issue. [ roux ] [x] 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

 – Block was good. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to bring people's attention to this user who appears to want appeal a block resulting from my reporting a violation. I think that adding a section isn't enough to trigger the appeal.

Could people

• either consider the appeal or do what is necessary to help set up the page User talk:Malcolm Schosha so that soemone can consider appeal.

• consider the, to my mind, rather fantastical accusations of COI against the blocking admin in a couple of sections of the talk page. I'm thinking particularly of [4] and [5].--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

URIs don't work in unblock templates, so I set up a template with his first sentence inside, the rest below it, so the page will now be seen by reviewing admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No time to review it myself, but FYI: if you put 1= in the unblock template ({{unblock|1=your reason}}), links will supposedly work. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been reviewed and declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Amridge University edits

For off-wiki reasons, I need this page (Amridge University) watched by any fellow admins involved in RC patrol, and also all edits by User:Justice4Me or any of future avatars the user might create. The =Controversies= section is a subject of a court case, and the user has been adding information that contravenes our policies on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. I've already warned the user on his/her talk page, but cannot personally monitor the university page continuously. Some of content added that was added is potentially libellous, and I have deleted some of it recently. Thanks in advance. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-listed discussion

• Regional differences and dialects in Indian English (AfD discussion)

Has the desired more thorough discussion taken place? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Collectonian, on any page in Wikipedia; harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited; or make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user.

These restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome. Should Abtract violate the restrictions imposed upon him, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged here. Collectonian is urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on October 16 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Advocating incivility and poor behavior

Is this essay even remotely appropriate? Grsz^Review! 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I'd MfD it myself if I wasn't at work. It's divisive and trollish; and there isn't even an attempt at deadpan humor or attempt to position it as satire. — Coren ^(talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to defeat editors you disagree with. _TalkIslander 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The essay is divisive, it is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cacarlo92 , his disruptive IP and his image edits,

User:Cacarlo92 and his disruptive IP User:87.21.6.211 are really causing problems in relation to fair use images. Not only has Cacarlo92 uploaded multiple dubious fair use images (he's even, oddly, uploaded identical images under the same fair use rational which were deleted). Cacarlo92 removes image deletion tags, removes his own talk page warnings (yes I know he's allowed but it's hard to keep track of what he's doing). Sometimes he uses his IP to do the dirty work, be it to blank his talk page or remove huge image deletion discussions. Please help. — Realist² 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant newbie admin wades in butt-deep, gets eaten by sharks: film at 11.

Somehow, probably for the sake of a few typos, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China found its way onto my watchlist. A slow-burning edit war there seems to have burst into a fast-burning one today, with four major participants: Asdfg12345, Ohconfucius, Dilip rajeev, and PCPP. Of the four, the most clearly-vitriolic is Ohconfucius, and he's been warned on the talk page to take it down about four notches. However, I also warned Asdfg12345 and PCPP earlier, because--from what I saw--they had both inadvertently broken 3RR. (This was as of the edits marked as 06:55 today.) Asdfg12345 does not believe he/she broke 3RR at any time, and left a (calm, civil) note on my talkpage to that effect. In the interim, however, Ohconfucius came back and changed everything back to his/her preferred version, leaving a rather (uncivil, OWNish) message on the article talk page.
I recognize that this is a content dispute, so I'm really only asking admin-ny questions, but I do have several: 1) Have I, in fact, misjudged that Asdfg12345 and PCPP broke 3RR? If so, could you explain what I missed? 2)(basic, lame q) If an editor reverts a whole bunch of another editor's changes, but does it in the course of one edit, does that count as a 3RR vio? If not, wouldn't that be a HUGELY effective way to game the whole intent of 3RR? 3)Does anyone have any advice about the best way to proceed here? I've encouraged talkpage discussion, but as you can see, it hasn't gone well. I plan to take the disputed Xinhua source to WP:RSN but other than that, does anyone have any suggestions?? Huge thanks in advance...Gladys J Cortez 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catch! Tan | 39 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a 3rr vio. Stop the edit warring, either by talk or block or page protection, before you do anything else. Then homing in on whatever reliable sources there are to be had, one way or another, is by far the most helpful way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanna watch that movie! ... but yeah, there's 3RR and all goin' around all abouts. If they persist, blocks to be had, but I would say that page protection might be more productive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be a 3RR violation here, but Gladys clearly doesn't understand the 3RR rule. The rule is against reverting the same article to the same version more than 3 times in 24 hours. There's no possible way to violate it with fewer than four separate edits to the same article. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say a 1-week page protection, with talk page requests to the 4 participants to work it out on the talk page in the meantime, is a good idea. Oh, and since you are new, then perhaps you didn't know about the most important rule of page protection. Be sure to protect the worst version of the article possible. Everyone will expect you to do it anyways. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, as it happens, protecting the worst, lamest, most glaringly off the wall version of the page can have amazing sway on editors to get along with each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not always. There's a problem at Kaveh Farrokh where the article has been protected since the 4th -- the dispute is over whether the lead can call the subject an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics (his qualifications aren't in either) on the basis of what a reporter wrote in an article on the Voice of America website. Those of us who don't think that a lead can call someone an expert on that basis (or that the lead should call someone an expert on any basis) are stuck because the (POV from my POV) editors who have been trying to build up the subject are quite happy to keep the article as it is indefinitely. Doug Weller (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Characterized by the Voice of America website as an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics but with academic and professional qualifications in neither" (citation, citation, citation) would be much lamer. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to respond to Looie496, 3RR covers many situations, and not just reverting to the same identical version 4 times. From WP:3RR, and I quote, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, ". Also, the most important quote from 3RR, the one that often gets missed, is "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that Falun Gong, and closely-related articles, are currently on Arbcom probation as listed here. That would seem to apply to this article, and all editors should be aware of the implications of edit-warring. The sanctions would appear to be weakly specified, but they are there. --Rodhullandemu 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Increase the Reliability of Wikipedia through Enforcement of Existing Policies

Proposed:

Any account used primarily for advocating pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery shall be blocked indefinitely.

This was originally proposed at ANI, but got lost in a larger discussion. The idea is that administrators should feel empowered to enforce core policies and related guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fringe, against single purpose policy violating accounts. We already indefinitely block spam-only and disruption-only accounts. I think there is merit in having a discussion and consensus that we can refer to later. This resolution, if approved, would take the form of a community general sanction, and be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions. Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Verbal chat 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, under the stipulation that at least one warning must occur before indefinite blocking to insure that users are aware their actions can result in an indef block. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that disruptive single purpose accounts of any kind should be blockable indefinitely by any admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So your proposal is that any admin, having determined that an editor is promoting pseudoscience, fringe theories or anything defined as "kookery" is empowered to issue an indefinite block immediately? Does this constitute a ban? I'm not sure this proposal will help anything - inevitably, there will be a thousand follow on ArbCom cases and AN or AN/I threads. Its a recipe for drama by the metric ton. Avruch ^T 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, my worry would be, who decides what's "pseudoscience, fringe theories or other kookery"? I see an awfully wide net brewing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

← This may be overreacting. I would agree that this sort of editing strikes directly at Wikipedia's underlying goal, which I believe to be the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. I would also agree that this sort of editing behavior is easy to identify but relatively hard to deal with, for a variety of reasons.

But I see this blanket proposal as likely to lead to more argument, wheel-warring, etc, because its essentials are vague: "primarily"? And who defines "pseudoscience" and "fringe science"? That in and of itself is the subject of a lengthy, exhausting on-wiki debate.

Here's what I'd like to see: let's streamline our processes for dealing with the left end of the bell curve - the subset of accounts who are obviously here to promote or publicize a fringe agenda rather than help build a respectable, serious reference work. Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. On the other hand, there are quite a few editors who are capable of good work and collaborative editing from a non-mainstream point of view - let's identify them and bring them into the discussion rather than polarizing every little debate and driving everyone from the middle to one extreme or the other. I think this proposal, as worded, might be a bit too blunt to accomplish this. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the proposal clarifies that the advocacy occurs in "mainstream" articles, for - while advocacy generally constrains the encyclopedic method - its existence within "Fringe Science" and "Pseudo Theory" articles is not especially disruptive. Otherwise, yeah, banninate the damn "alternative perspective of reality" advocates!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Starts list...

I'm all for Mastcell's Less enabling, no more 27th-and-final-this-time-I-really-mean-it chances. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't quite as simple as it looks, I'm afraid. I've recently done some work in an area where there have been extensive and rather intellectually challenging debates about whether certain information is "fringe", mainstream, noteworthy or of questionable relevance. I've also seen some areas where it is nearly impossible to include well-sourced but contradictory information; or to factually describe certain "fringe" topics from the perspective of those who believe in their validity. Finally, I am not confident that all administrators have sufficient subject matter expertise to be able to personally make these assessments. That is why we have some of our various noticeboards. Where admins can be of most help, I think, is in providing support to our broad swath of editors who have concerns, but only if the administrator(s) involved can remain neutral and have a good grasp of the core editing policies and guidelines themselves. Risker (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• No. Admin tools + editorial mandate = disaster waiting to happen. The wiki process should be doing the job of managing content, and if it isn't, admin tool use is not the answer.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why I would want to look much harder only at disruptive SPAs, rather than the PoVs they edit towards. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen has a good point. And the application of patience, common sense, and dialogue, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR and resolve issues. Increased participation also helps, a fringe idea by definition has fringe adherence, simply go grab some outside opinions to add their voice. Look, everyone who has the admin bit should have at some point in the past dealt with a content dispute without admin tools. Just apply what you did then!--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reducing unnecessary wikidrama or disruption sounds like a brilliant idea indeed. Oh, and can we please add pseudoscepticism and postmodern philosophy explicitly to the list? More seriously, I still hope it's just a problem with my sarcasm detectors, but it does seem that a few other people also think this proposal may have been made in earnest. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd draft

When an editor repeated adds fringe, and it keeps getting removed, that is a sign of a behavioral problem. This not meant to be a content judgment by the admin. Here, let me repropose it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for advocacy of fringe theories may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

Does that help? Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• No. You are conflating behaviour with content. Risker (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no way to get around that. Shall we let editors pour endless amounts of crap into the encyclopedia, or shall we stop them? How exactly do you propose stopping persistent violations of content policies? Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Persistent advocacy of an agenda in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies is already described by tendentious editing, and already is (or should be) grounds for administrative action. I don't think we need another formulation of WP:TE; we just need to take these abuses of Wikipedia almost as seriously as we take incivility, and it will be fine. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • What I am hoping to do here is raise the visibility of exactly that problem. We have perfectly good policies, but admins are not doing enough to enforce them. They get bogged down in endless litigation, so they enforce things like civility that are more clear cut (Oh, look, a naughty word. BLOCK!). Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Now it sounds like something that's worth trying. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) I agree with Risker and Mastcell. Make any good faith PoV blockable and all you've got is yet another spin on Conservapedia. There's too much likelihood of self-selection when an editorial consensus in and of itself carries the weight of a swift block. The worry is disruptive SPAs and I would be all for quicker and longer blocks for any disruptive SPA, whatever their PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• (EC)Unconvinced we take incivility all that seriously, and my objections above are still relevant here. I think MastCell's suggestion about sorting the essentially malicious users from the good users is smart, but not something that can be solved with Wikipedia policy making, but proactive behavior on the part of ALL users.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be incapable of deleting articles that violate our core content policies, as I have learned on more than one occasion. How can we justify banninating editors when we can't even deal with the content?

"Crap" is in the eye of the beholder. I look at some of the heavily controlled fringe articles, and see poor articles that inadequately explain what the topic is about, largely because whenever anyone tries to explain it, they are hounded as SPAs and fringe editors. Some of them are, yes, but some of them are not. There are some articles where determined editors and admins have successfully fought off the inclusion of balancing information for extended periods, usually in good faith, but probably not in accordance with the same policies you propose to enforce here. Risker (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Whilst I see where is is coming from, and have some sympathy with with those battling kooks, there is a huge danger of this being used by people who prefer SPOV to NPOV to run off their opponents. Gah Gah. No. You want a secularliberalpedia, go make one.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd draft

Based upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, accounts used primarily for tendentious editing may be blocked indefinitely. A consensus can be determined by discussing the editor's conduct on the appropriate noticeboard, such as the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents, the Neutral point of view noticeboard, or the Fringe theory noticeboard. Accounts shall be warned prior to application of this sanction.

This version is simplified, per MastCell's comment above. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on. I would support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman...this is NOT needed, really. We already have the policies and guidelines in place to address this. Risker (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not lack of policy; the problem is lack of enforcement. I think we do need this to encourage enforcement, and to provide cover for admins who try. Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both, truth be told. The policies are there, but following through on them is often very weak. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Still object. Why should FTN be singled out from any other minority point of view. This still has the danger of being the thin end of the death of NPOV... they came first for the pseudoscientists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a pseudoscientist.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) comment - I see this as more of a reminder to admins (and others), and should maybe be included in the 'new admin guide' or whatever, and maybe added as an explicit section of the various essays and guides people use to help them explain our culture to new/recalcitrant editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Still runs into conflation of admin tools and content decisions, something we should be VERY cautious about, a trait not particularly in good supply in the admin corps right now. Scott makes a good point: theres no clear lines drawn about what is fringe, according to who, when, and why. Furthermore, WP:SPA and WP:TE are essays, not policy, and for good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How does the third draft have anything to do with content? (not a baiting question) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, less explicitly so, but SPA and TE both refer to the POVs (which is a content thing) of various accounts. Aside from the dangers of trying to divine the intentions of others across the internet, TE has been used repeatedly to label stubborn editors of minority viewpoints (a content thing), with no clear distinction on when some editors are being reasonable in their minority view point, and others have a behavior that would be disruptive and tendentious even if they were advocating a mainstream opinion. --Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with your take on that. I do think anything to do with good faith content should be thoroughly skived from any blocking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• (EC)There actually are reasons why WP:TE isn't policy, but it isn't because the feelings expressed there don't have wide support among wikipedians. It is because TE doesn't describe limitations on behavior or expectations on content. TE describes one particular insidious method of disruption. We are also not enjoined from making this policy and marking the essay as supporting policy. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TE has a lot of good material in it, but see my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is much better. We need something that isn't just "file an RfC and watch nothing happen" but we don't need a license to kill. It's been said above that content policing and admin tools are a bad, bad fit (and one that would cause me to be much more skeptical at RfA's). But we do need something. We can't just throw our hands up and say, "disengage or trawl through DR" Protonk (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Maybe user RfC isn't the best place, but consistently separating the behaviours from the content is very important. Most of our dispute resolution is content-oriented: Noticeboards for BLP, reliable sources, notability etc; WP:3O; a large amount of the mediation that is done. It is much easier to redirect inappropriate behaviour when the content issues are being addressed in a neutral and objective manner. Risker (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: this entire direction of thought is an invitation to disaster. "tendentious editing" is a very broad term indeed, and could apply very widely indeed to many people who happen to be interested in one or another side of an issue. Even the much stronger "Disruptive editing" is normally subject only to blocks of increasing length unless it reaches to the level of outrageous vandalism. this is a major step down, and I do mean down, the path to arbitrary action and destruction of NPOV. I would suggest that before we do this we either a/eliminate the existence of arbcom, which is the one group that ought to be doing things of this nature, or b/define consensus as we do for ban, where any one administrator objecting can prevent a ban, or c/redefine WP as an encyclopedia where no controversial topics will be permitted. DGG (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:TE needs more talking about first. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)