:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
Argh, I hate adding stuff to archived discussions, but, for transparency: I have blocked {{userlinks|Topology Expert}} for 48 hours for trolling this board with unsubstantiated accusations of abuse and, when asked to stop, for widening that to include others who he disagrees with. Review is welcomed, as always. ➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User talk:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font> [[User:Redvers/Say no to Commons|a sweet and tender hooligan]] 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
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. [1], [2], [3]). 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)[reply]
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 pageSpartazHumbug!06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.GJC07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TalkIslander12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would support an indef block, but I don't see how we'd do it on the IP... as for the account, there seems to be consensus to indef-block, so I've gone ahead and done it. TalkIslander13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I indef-blocked on my understanding of the situation, and of the apparent consensus. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, go ahead and unblock/reblock for a period of time. TalkIslander13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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:Bite22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we know that. However, what Iridescent is describing is the more literal difference between an indef block and an indef site-wide ban. TalkIslander22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's what I am wondering. It seems as though Everyme is intent on continuing to use it for discussion other than requesting to be unblocked. He is also requesting that certain people don't comment on it, namely myself and Grsz11. If he's not going to request to be unblocked, I don't entirely see why he needs it. TalkIslander14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget that - Everyme's continued incivility, plus his assurance that he has no wish to request an unblock, has led me to remove his access to his talk page. Unfortunate, but there you go. TalkIslander14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... GJC18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-man23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? Mangojuicetalk22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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 | Talk06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
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".
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[reply]
(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. [4]. Regards SoWhy12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can make an exception for somone who dissapeared in 1967. Besides - simply removing the offending material hides it from view. ViridaeTalk23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
I've now been all through Runcorn's blocking log, and there are no more indef-IP-blocks which aren't claimed to be open proxies. Most of the indef-proxy blocks probably also need revisiting, but then there's nothing new about that. -- zzuuzz(talk)03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
FT2 decided, as an administrator, to skip the block step in Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. FT2 also protected SA's talk page until the block SA was already under expired. I view that as an administrator having reviewed the situation and taken an appropriate interim measure. There is relevant discussion underway at WP:AE, which may lead someone to bring forth a suggestion for community sanctions or to just imposing sanctions under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. GRBerry15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really good if some admins could actually help SA to police the mass POV-pushing of pseudoscience and fringe advocates instead of actively helping their bait and trap operation designed to run him out of town so they can rewrite Wikipedia in their own image. To describe that bit of sarcasm as a "threat" is ludicrous over-reaction. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. SA appears to be the only one who is passionate about defending Wikipedia from the hordes of pseudo-scientific POV-pushers, of all colours and flavours. If he sometimes loses his cool that's unfortunate but understandable. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA is not the only person who cares about the issue. And he's probably more passionate than is productive - if he didn't take incidents so personally and responded more professionally he'd be far more effective at defending against pseudoscience problems.
I never claimed that ScienceApologist's threats [6] were "credibly... real" -- even threats of violence which have little prospect of being effectuated may nonetheless result in the offending editor's account being blocked indefinitely. Though ScienceApologist boasts that "I wrote a satire piece on my talk page that someone decided was a criminal threat. Now the police have called me... laughing." [7], the prohibition of threats embodied in our no personal attacks policy is far more expansive than the criminal law. John25423:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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...
The pejorative designation of users as "civil POV-pushers" is inappropriate: civility is no vice. Users who are engaging in WP:NPOV violations or "POV-pushing" can be sanctioned on that basis alone. Threatening users [8] regarded as "POV-pushers", even "in jest", will accomplish nothing except to lower our level of discourse to the nastiness and trolling prevailing on Encyclopedia Dramatica -- especially since, if such comments were permissible, the "hordes who have their own agenda to advance" would likewise be allowed to issue counter-threats. John25400:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the evidence page. The editor in question absolutely fits the description civil POV pusher. And he's not the only one. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 [9] 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. --KushanI.A.K.J15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | Talk21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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, talk23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 | Talk00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Jameson21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jameson22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Jameson23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 [10] 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 [11] 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)[reply]
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 Talk23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 [12], [13], and [14] on User talk:AussieLegend. If anyone here needs blocking, it's you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.[15] I certainly wasn't the only one reverting his edits. Two other editors also took exception and reverted.[16][17] Invitations to discuss the edits on the talk page, by way of edit summaries[18][19] and invitations on the user's talk page,[20] were fruitless. Ultimately Encyclopedia77's response was deletion of the discussion, twice.[21][22] 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.[23] After I changed them back and left a warning about doing that[24] his response was a silly comment on my talk page.[25] He has deleted content from my talk page archives[26] and accused Josh the Nerd of being a sockpuppet.[27] As recently as today, after having suggested that he acquaint himself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines several days ago,[28] he has again deleted content, this time from my talk page.[29] 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)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you Reverted 2 times in a day, Aussie. Even then, if I make "redundant" templates abd images, so? Others do, too. like the {{VandalNoticeSmall}} template, some onn't like the {{repeat vandal}} template. See {{test5}} and {{test6}} and {{block}}. They're redundant, arent they??--Encyclopedia77 Talk14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've been asked to comment. I am quite sorry if Jayvdb's candidacy is being affected by en bloc voting on ethnic or other lines because of his involvement in a heated ethnic dispute on wiki. I don't think that would be fair to him, and I don't like the implications it would have to our Arb selection process. I would like to state that (1) I have no tie whatsoever to the Armenian-Azerbaijan situation on wiki and have no national identification to any of the parties of this dispute (I'm a Canadian of Indian extraction); (2) I've never edited on any articles involving Armenia or Azerbaijan (I edit mainly medical articles); (3) I have not been involved in any canvassing along ethnic lines and haven't received or sent e-mails regarding Jayvdb's candidacy; and (4) I voted against Jayvdb, as did others, because I thought votes against fellow top arbcom candidates constituted poor behaviour for an aspiring Arb.
Arbcom elections tend to bring out long term contributors such as myself who are interested in the leadership of the project, but who haven't had much time to contribute lately. I intend to comment on all candidates over the next 10 days.
That being said, I'd like to remind Jayvdb of WP:AGF, which becomes of paramount importance when you are under the intense scrutiny of Arbcom candidacy. You've jumped to a conclusion based on your perception of the "ethnicity" of my username, and have indicated that there is no other rational explanation for my vote, when there indeed was. I really don't think that's fair at all. -- Samir18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jameson00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 || talk00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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. --Elonka00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Tom01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jameson01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jameson01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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%. --NE201:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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 | Talk01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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). IronDuke01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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 | Talk01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/Khoikhoi - admin account, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Nepaheshgar, Raayen and Larno Man (read from the bottom up).
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/Nepaheshgar - inactive 3 days, series of votes starting with Jayvdb. Compare with Khoikhoi, Larno Man and Raayen (read from the bottom up).
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)[reply]
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.Jameson01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry seems less likely given the 150 mainspace edit threshold for voting in ArbCom elections; I'd agree with you that it looks more like meatpuppetry via off-wiki canvassing, as Elonka has already described. -- ChrisO (talk)
It's damn bold that you've put my name in there. I'm not Armenian/Azerbaijani/Persian and have never set foot on any of those articles. I've never e-mailed or received e-mails from any of these people, nor have I corresponded with them on wiki to my knowledge. Take my name off this list now please, and pay more attention with your "sleuthing". -- Samir19:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/c03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/c03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[30] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ST47's ACE2008 graphJust 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. :) --Elonka04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is probably not the best place for me to raise the question of how non-zero-baseline graphs might systematically distort data presentation... :) Franamax (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/c04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not even sure that constitutes canvassing in any reasonable sense. Using off-wiki functions to have frank discussions with colleagues seem more than reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. Orderinchaos07:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete.My.Name.Now. What the hell is this? ChrisO deserves an RfC for launching a smearing campaign against editors like me because according to him I committed the crime of being inactive for 4(!!!) days. And doesn't anybody see that ChrisO is implicitly canvassing sympathy votes for Jayvdb? (Just see the supports after this incident). I have my own reasons for voting oppose and I do not allow anyone, especially ChrisO with whom there is a lot of history, questioning my judgment. I do not feel I have to explain myself to the slightest, however my main reason for opposing is that this guy voted against other candidates which is shameful and not of AC standard. --Avg (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at your vote, you did give reasons (other than Armenia-Azerbaijan, that is) to oppose Jayvdb's candidacy. I'm happy to chalk this one up as a false positive and strike your entry from the list. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely uncalled for. I've never had any dealings with Armenians or Azerbaijanis. The previous experience I referred to relates to a number of Iranian editors who have previously been discussed on AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncalled for at all, seeing how you're labeling and singling out people based on their presumed race and ethnicity. It's also common knowledge that you have been constantly clashing with every Jewish editor there is on Wikipedia. Given your history, it's safe to assume that racism might be a factor here. You are not helping your case by using such tone and words, and witch-hunting for ethnics, and racially profiling editors. Needless to say, your behavior is highly inappropriate, and infringes on people's privacy and freedom. Another editor's ethnicity, national origin or race is none of your business. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/c13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Thatcher13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you probably could get more information, by sending an email to various users yourself and comparing the now-discovered hash-key against your list of suspect recipients. That would be quite chilling and would hopefully trigger the Tar-and-feather-the-CU extension. Franamax (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, who wants to file the relevant bug-report to prevent that sort of issue? The obvious solution is to make the hash a function of both the sender and the receiver's username rather than just the receiver (I can't find where this is documented in detail. Does anyone if know if it already does that or not?). In any event, I think we have a consensus here that looking at the emails in this case is not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What it looks like Cla68's suggestion would address is the side of a bloc voting campaign that seeks to bolster competing candidates regardless of merit, in order to sink one individual. If we suppose for purposes of discussion that a group of Hawaiian nationalists want to keep a particular candidate off ArbCom, then Cla68's proposal would make it harder for the Hawaiians to cast tactical support for other candidates that could take the final open position. I don't know whether that's the best solution overall, but Cla68's reasoning does hold together. DurovaCharge!18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait until after this election to make plans for the next election. But regarding the matter of blocs voting to oppose a candidate, that could be fixed simply by allowing only votes in support of a candidate rather than the current approval system. The approval system gives disproportional weight to opposes. Assuming that the minimum threshold is 50% approval, one "oppose" is worth two "supports". In the 80% approval range, one "oppose" is worth four "supports". While voters who oppose a candidate could still affect the outcome by supporting other candidates instead, that would have much less impact than under the current system. ·:· Will Beback·:·20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make tactical support substantially harder. They'd just vote to support every candidate but the one they wanted instead of a select few near the candidate. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Cla68's proposal not your proposal. You are correct about your proposal and correct about the combined form. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jameson12:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. GRBerry15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
This discussion is dangerous
I think that this discussion is both unwarranted as well as dangerous. If we start looking for vote stacking by searching editing histories, examining email, popping vote-stacking templates, sock-puppet accusations and that sort of thing, we will end up creating an environment of vote fear. Genuine azerbaijani editors (or is it armenians) who want to vote against Jayvdb will hesitate to vote, fearing that their votes will be discussed, highlighted, or made obvious in some way or the other. Worse, other editors who have had negative experiences with a particular candidate (perhaps a tiff over Intelligent design or Sarah Palin) will wonder whether it is worth risking aggravation if other voters pile on as well. This tendency to search for ulterior motives on the 'oppose' side of a vote is best avoided. If groups of 'eligible' voters want to vote a particular way, let them because, while the worst case scenario from ignoring this thing is that one deserving editor may fail to qualify as an arbitrator (or admin or bureaucrat or ....), the worst case scenario on the side of following the trail like a bulldog is that many honestly opposing editors will stay away from the process, damaging it irrevocably. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the underlying issue here, per Note To Self #2, but I will say this. Samir (talk·contribs) is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia. He's contributed an immense amount of quality content over several years here, in addition to his administrative work. He's gone out of his way to add numerous high-quality, free images to medical articles by asking his patients' consent to use their scans - that's what I'd call going above and beyond the call of duty. To the extent that Wikipedia has any quality health-related content, he deserves as much credit as anyone, with the possible exception of Jfdwolff. Samir was a mentor and role model for me when I started out here, and co-nominated me for adminship. He dealt with one of Wikipedia's more troublesome problem users and suffered harassment in connection with this. While I'm saddened by his absence from Wikipedia over the past year, I don't see how that's grounds for lumping him in with a bunch of newish nationalist agenda accounts. If Samir doesn't deserve a say in Wikipedia's governance, then none of us do. I know institutional memory is non-existent here (at least when it comes to positive contributions; no one ever forgets a cranky diff from 3 years ago), but can you guys be a bit more careful and discerning in compiling your list of "suspects"? MastCellTalk20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the list a "list of suspects" per se. The main question Samir's participation raises (after a year's absence) is, "How did he even know Jay was running?" If he was simply responding to an off-wiki canvass, does this not raise at least a bit of a red flag for you? And though I pointed it out above, I feel I should reiterate my position on Jay's candidacy: I opposed it. I'm just all for full, fair, and open elections, and the clear off-wiki canvassing disturbs me a bit. S.D.D.J.Jameson20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samir's account isn't compromised. I consider Samir a personal friend of mine and I emailed him (not through his WP account) yesterday when I first noticed this discussion and he replied to me. His account definitely is not compromised. Even though he hasn't edited for a year, he has still been 'around' the project so I don't find it that strange that he would decide he wanted to participate in the ArbCom elections. I personally hold Samir in very high regard and if he says he wasn't canvassed then I believe him. Sarah03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know the explanation for why an editor should be absent for 13 months and then return at the same time as numerous other absent editors, all voting against Jayvdb (and mostly only Jayvdb) during the same short period of time. When we see highly unusual voting patterns it's not unreasonable to seek explanations. I would say it's more dangerous to ignore possible attempts to corrupt ArbCom elections, given the need to have a process with some integrity. By the way, Samir has commented on this thread but has not answered the question of whether or not he was canvassed. I've asked him to clarify this point. I emphasize that this isn't a witch-hunt, merely an attempt to get to the bottom of this matter. We've had a first-hand report from Elonka of off-wiki canvassing, so we know there is something very improper going on here. We would be derelict in our duty to ignore that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, ChrisO, I think you should have been more careful about the inclusion about at least some of those names in the list of users who "had been inactive for at least a couple of days but appeared suddenly around the same time to oppose Jayvdb." While you went on to say that you were not claiming that these editors were definitely canvassed, that they merely "[met] the criteria I've set out above", your basis for inclusion was needlessly wide, implicating by association those who had voted for other candidates, and had only been inactive for more than a couple of days. That period of inactivity means precisely nothing. For example, User:Avg, whom I do not know but who I see voted for and against several candidates immediately after his/her vote against User:Jayvdb. I understand you want to get to the bottom of what may or may not be going on here, but no matter how well-intentioned you were, by presenting what some editors may well see as a slur against their good name you may be pissing good contributors off who do not deserve it. SteveT • C22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, to clarify for the last time: I have no nationalist agenda in this matter. I don't know any of the particulars, and have no nationalist reason to oppose Jayvdb. Indeed, I don't even know what his role in the on-wiki controversy was. I've never edited any articles in that sphere and carry no POV. No one e-mailed me asking me to vote for nationalist reasons or other reasons, and I'm not on any e-mail list that is pro-Armenia POV or pro-Azerbaijan POV. I don't even know if those exist. I didn't e-mail Elonka. I didn't recruit anyone to vote. I had no idea that people were being recruited to vote against Jayvdb. I am interested in deciding who is on ArbCom, as it is an important part of the project that I have worked on for a long time. I intend to vote on all the candidates. Jayvdb was one of the few names I recognized so I voted on him first. I am sorry if you did not like my vote, but you and Jayvdb clearly have not assumed good faith and have caused unnecessary drama. To accuse me of impropriety in the absence of real evidence is wrong. I ask you again to remove my name from your list of meatpuppets above -- Samir23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the start, the list is merely of apparently anomalous votes, not of meatpuppets. The specific issue with Samir's vote was raised first by Jayvdb himself, not by me. Because the voting pattern in that instance was so unusual - over 13 months' absence followed by a single edit to oppose Jayvdb - it was certainly worth reviewing. I'm glad to see that Samir has offered an explanation of his particular vote, and I'm happy to remove him from the list as a result. -- ChrisO (talk)
It's your definition of anomalous voting pattern that I think needs refining; at present it includes users who had merely been inactive for "more than a couple of days" (meaningless), and who voted for and against editors other than Jayvdb, but who just happened to log their vote against him first. To my mind, that's too broad, and may well be presenting a distorted view of the scale of this (whatever "this" may be). If nothing else, it may piss off those editors who voted in good faith and potentially turn them away from future participation. SteveT • C23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, if you're referring to my case, ChrisO took a long shot trying to smear me since we've fallen out previously and he just can't let it go. That's ChrisO allright for those who know him. Notice that although I've explicitly requested my name to be removed, he failed and still fails to do so.--Avg (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked your post a few hours ago and replied to it as soon as I spotted it, including removing your name as requested. [31] You're also completely wrong about "smearing" - this has nothing to do with any previous disputes we've had. I have no brief for or against Jayvdb (I don't recall ever interacting with him before, actually), but I do care about defending Wikipedia's integrity. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I find this discussion rather misguided. Unless we're going to start striking votes of people we think were canvassed, what do you hope to achieve? It seems if people meet the criteria for voting then they can vote however they want, including in voting blocs and tactically as they see fit. Other than pointing out to Jimmy at the conclusion of the election that there is a suspicion that canvassing took place and reconsidering how we conduct elections for next year (although it seems that all methods of elections are vulnerable to canvassing and bloc voting and trying to stop it seems rather futile, especially for critical positions like the arbitration committee) I don't really see what else anyone can expect to achieve here at this point. This discussion is contaminating and corrupting the results further as people support and oppose as a result of this discussion. Unless anyone has any sort of immediate remedy in mind I think this discussion should be concluded until after the elections. Sarah03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arb Committee response to canvassing checkuser and admins?
Elonka reported that even admins and a checkuser (!!) were aggressively canvassing her to change her vote. I asked her here [32] if this was reported to the AC. Can the AC please comment on what actions will taking against these wildly disruptive admins and this mysterious Checkuser? rootology (C)(T) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, dear. The usual arbcom election drama. I will say this, though.
Re John's candidacy for arbcom - it's annoying. I've done a lot of AA work in my arbcom enforcement activities and have never considered John being biased (and I'm usually very quick to call on people, admins included, if I think they are biased). I suspect these opposes are mostly coming in from people pissed off at getting their arses banninated at various stages: I have absolutely no doubt that last year I suffered from exactly the same thing when running for arbcom: both the canvassing and the general "He's mean, he blocked me!" opposes. I (almost certainly) wouldn't have been elected anyway, but it's a nuisance.
The general trend is that non-entities get elected to the arbcom: admins who have never done anything much controversial or public before. As a result, despite impressive candidacies on the surface we have no idea if they can the display the crucial quality of grace under pressure - although, having said that, Rlevse and Risker look to be bucking the trend this year. However, I am convinced that this general trend has produced some of ArbCom's wilder eccentricities this year (OrangeMarlinGate rises to mind), which displayed a singular lack of grace under pressure. The other problem with electing these types is that, having spent much of their wikilives hanging out with reasonable people, they think everybody is like that, and are rather useless are noticing nutters who do not think like us when they come before them - not to mention actually biting the bullet and banning the fuckers.
I am not saying this is anything we can do much about, but it is something to be wary of and bear in mind. Consider this consolations, John, if it doesn't work out. I hope it does. But you and I are not going to be popular, as we do a nasty and mucky job. But Christ - someone has to do it. If not us, who? Moreschi (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. Talking to colleagues about who one is going to vote for or trying to persuade people not to is not some form of problematic canvassing. It is simply part of the normal process of decision making. If a given individual is not interested in such discussion they can say so. But by itself trying to persuade people isn't a problem Heck I've spent most of my wiki related time the last week arguing with different people about different candidates. For some of those I solicited their opinions. Others volunteered their opinions to me based on comments I had made. None of this is canvassing by any reasonable interpretation. And it is certainly not canvassing to try and persuade someone who has already voted to change their vote. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Elonka had specifically referred to it as canvassing, and I think uninvited solicitation from people to sway your vote in ACE or RFA is canvassing, but that could be just me. rootology (C)(T) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A certain amount of off-wiki discussion is fine, especially when I'm getting messages from people that I chat with regularly anyway, and they may say, "Hey, how's it going, who are you voting for this year? Yeah, I agree with you on most of those, but what about Sam Smith, I'm opposing him but you're supporting, how come?" etc. That kind of stuff is fine. But when it starts getting out of hand, is when multiple messages start flying around off-wiki that are based just on one candidate. It was getting a bit ridiculous on my buddy list, as people who hadn't contacted me for quite some time suddenly started pinging me. Windows were opening up all over my monitor, and with each new one that opened, even before they said anything, my immediate guess was, "Oh gee, someone else who's going to try and get me to flip my vote on Jayvdb," and then sure enough, that's exactly what they started in with. No, "Hi, how you doing, how're your holidays, what's up with you these days," just straight into lobbying efforts, always on the same candidate, and all of them with the same concerns about the Armenian issue. As soon as I started posting in this AN thread though, all of the IMs stopped. Looks pretty organized to me. --Elonka22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names, please, Elonka. Even if it's not actionable now I want to know. It can be useful for analysing behaviour patterns in the future. Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the election is over, I think this affair will need to be referred to the (new) ArbCom. There are a number of outstanding questions which really need to be resolved at a high level. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm generally someone who a) enjoys arguing and b) prefers that people tell me when they think I'm wrong if they can back it up with a logical argument (Although I hope Kurt doesn't read this comment). Moreover, it isn't clear to me if it is canvassing in the sense of why we don't want canvassing; we are trying to get a reasonable sample of the community to arrive at a consensus. Having people who would not vote in an election end up voting obviously distorts that sample. Having people argue with each other does not. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He recently co-wrote an article about Azerification of Persian poet Nezami (Anti-Azeri). He was also the author of "Supposed falsification of Armenian history"(Anti-Armenian). So I wouldn't put any pro-x tag on him. VartanM (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not - I'm only noting the link with the topic area that seems to be at the root of this controversy. Elonka has already described how it was the main focus of the canvassing she received. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential solution for next year
For the board elections, one of the criteria to vote was 150 edits on any single Wikimedia project since Jan 01 2008. Maybe we need to consider looking at a "X edits since April/May/June 2009" criteria for next years election to hopefully prevent this problem. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might be a good idea to put an "activity" requirement on it, either by a certain amount of recent edits, or a generalized average over the last year. Where the cutoff should be, I'm not sure, but there's an element of "I'll know it when I see it". For example, if someone hasn't made a single edit on EN for a year, I don't think they should be voting in the EN ArbCom elections. --Elonka04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is dangerous part 2
Qutoting ChrisO
among editors who share a particular, primarily Iranian nationalist, POV.
constitutes grossly improper canvassing motivated by an ethnic nationalist agenda which has no place on Wikipedia.
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.
I'd be interested to know the explanation for why an editor should be absent for 13 months
I'm happy to remove him from the list as a result
This looks very much like another ethnic agenda vote
End quote
What ChrisO started here would've been called voter intimidation in real life. He's racially profiling users based on their ethnic origin, taking names, creating lists, counting the days of their inactivity. Is this not an open election? are Jamaicans allowed to vote? how about the women? Are our 150 edits not worth someone elses 150 edits? This is similar to what the Nazis did in WWII and how African-Americans were treated in US. How low is this election going to go? It's time everyone remembered the WP:AGF. --VartanM (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't exaggerate. We know for a fact that improper canvassing motivated by the Armenia-Azerbaijan issue has occurred here - see Elonka's first-hand descriptions above. We also know for a fact that there are significant anomalies in the pattern of voting - see ST47's graph. It's clear that this election has been seriously distorted by an off-wiki campaign driven by one or more ethnic conflict. The question before us is how severe this distortion has been and what we can and should do about it, in this election and the next. It's entirely reasonable to examine and question apparently anomalous votes. This isn't a secret ballot - we vote openly for a reason, to encourage and enable transparency. I find it interesting that so far nobody has sought to defend the canvassing that has been going on. Do you consider it justifiable to vote against an ArbCom candidate for reasons of ethnic nationalism? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you again. "how severe this distortion has been and what we can and should do about it," What happened is Armenian and Iranian users who had first hand experience with John's impartiality raised their voice and you appointed yourself as the defender of truth and justice. Again what you're doing is called racism, I have every right to oppose him, because I know for the fact that he took sides, as a matter of fact he admits that he took sides. If you are so righteous about canvassing, lets dig in the past elections, lets examine how many other arbcom members won or lost their elections because a certain group of people voted for or against them. -- VartanM (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying, that for the sake of political correctness we should pretend that nothing is happening and that 40+ Armenian and Iranian oppose votes never happened? We should believe that people who have not contributed for many months and those who never edited en:wiki before, but turned up for the sole purpose of voting against a certain candidate was a mere coincidence? Please explain me this. I know Divot (talk·contribs) from the Russian wiki. He is known for his extreme pro-Armenian bias. I can demonstrate this by the articles he edits, 99% of his edits there are on AA topic. Why did he come to vote in en:wiki, where he has never ever edited before, and his only vote was against John? How did he become aware of this voting and how come that his only vote was to oppose the same person that other similar accounts opposed? What about Hayk (talk·contribs), another editor from the Russian wiki? He has not edited en:wiki for 4 months, and again he tried to cast a vote against John. Then we have a Syrian Armenian Hovalp (talk·contribs), who also has not edited for 5 months, and also came to vote to oppose. And I can continue citing examples. Even Fadix (talk·contribs), permanently banned by the arbcom, returned to wiki to join the campaign against John, this is Fadix's new sock: Inductionheating (talk·contribs). I don't think anyone has any doubts about what's going on. Obviously someone told all those people to come and vote against this particular person apparently to “support the Armenian cause”. What is of interest here is who is behind that and what kind of communication is used to mobilize all those people here. I saw this many times happening during AfDs, but now it is open for the entire community to see. I believe the mobilization takes place on some off wiki forums, such as this one: [35] There's some sort of a nationalistic discussion there, and there's some guy complaining that wikipedia is taken over by the "Azerbaijani flock", and then we have VartanM there, posting a link to the ongoing discussion in en:wiki with some message in Armenian (can’t tell what it is, since I don’t speak Armenian, but I think one can get an idea from the general discussion there). It is quite possible that this is how people are being recruited to join edit wars and votestacking. It is also possible that this is done via off wiki mailing lists. But the fact that the off wiki canvassing is taking place cannot be doubted by anyone. And yes, someone must have the courage to say it out loud, without being afraid of hurting someone’s national feelings. There's little doubt that this smear campaign against John stems out of the outcome of Ehud Lesar's arbitration case. John was one of the 2 admins who had the courage to stand up for the unfairly banned user. Now he has to pay the price for standing in the way of the group of editors, who wanted to have one of their opponents unfairly blocked. Grandmaster (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ALCOHOLTC05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Zzyzx11used 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)[reply]
Oh dear, so I was right after all. Okay, thanks for confirming that I'm not totally absentminded. I'll try to keep an eye on upcoming Main Page images, and if any other admins reading this could pitch in, that would be great. —Slowking Man (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just speedy deleted Category:Halfricans as an attack page, because as the category page itself noted[36], 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)[reply]
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 talk12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Isn't this kind of conduct why Sceptre was blocked in the first place? And wasn't he only unblocked because he was being given a last chance? Jtrainor (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real familiar with the situation, but yeah, it does look like he was on his "last chance" a couple chances ago. He needs to be shown the door- he's apparently unable to behave like a reasonable adult. Friday(talk)18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unfamiliar with the case and I thought this was bad, but looking through his history I'm surprised he's been here this long; he is a liability in my opinion despite any good work he gets done.--Patton12321:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, he's been immoderate, using ALL CAPS IN AN EDIT SUMMARY, and he violated assume good faith by making false accusations of stalking and somebody having creepy interests in minors. Prior incidents have lead to final warnings and indefinite blocks have been imposed and shortened twice. I believe the behavior this time is not bad enough to warrant a ban, therefore, I suggest we ask Sceptre nicely to stop making accusations against other people, and if he agrees, wewatch a bit longer to see if the behavior improves or worsens. JehochmanTalk22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him until the 9th of december, the expiry of his block that was lifted early. He asked for an unblock and promised to behave in an adult fashion and clearly failed to do so. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would we have blocked someone else if they did not have Sceptre's prior history? I'm not sure this would be on ANI were it another user. That bothers me a little bit. Still I understand if given the circumstances we treat him as being on a shorter leash than others. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[E/C] The incidents that led to his previous series of blocks were attacks on Giano and Kmweber. Within a week of being unblocked he repeated the type of personal attack against the same editor that had caused a previous block. On December 1, Sceptre compared voting for Kmweber for ArbCom to voting for a pedophile for PTA.[38] (after complaints, he redacted the comment). His comment to ParisianBlade seems like a personal attack as well.[39] ·:· Will Beback·:·22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To joshua: no, I wouldn't have. I also would not have blocked him for this if we wasn't on a last chance reduction of a formerly indefinite block for personal attacks, stalking and harassment. But he was. His block was shortened with some consensus at AN/I to three months (to end Dec. 9). Later it was lifted (and consensus was reached about that) provided he comport himself like an adult and edit mainspace. This flare-up and flurry of accusations doesn't fit that at all. So I just reinstated the rest of the 3 month block. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the block FWIW; I used to have a rather positive and congenial relationship with Will/Sceptre but he seriously went off "the deep end" a few months ago, and I continue to be saddened by his descent from a quality editor and respected admin to an instigator and propagator of lame fights and his descent into incivility for incivility's sake. He may have valid points to make, but his shocking incivility prevents others from considering them. Its a shame, really. --Jayron32.talk.contribs22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I wish I was seeing the encyclopedia benefit from high quality/GA/FA Doctor Who/Lost/House/Road articles minus drama. The readers of these articles are the ones punished when Sceptre gets blocked. I do, however, think it is important to point out that ParisianBlade's recent edits have been mostly about Sceptre. Seraphim♥22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this action. I was pretty sure this would happen; Sceptre has not been away for long enough to get the disputes out of his system. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I made a nub mistake and hardblocked it. It's been changed. Sorry. Not sure how far back the ip blocking goes, I guess. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would we have given a five day block to someone who didn't have Sceptre's particular history? No, we would have called them a SPA and indef-blocked. For all the fuss over "contributions", I frankly really don't see much benefit in continuing to treat him with kid gloves when he chooses to be disruptive - I heavily doubt Dr. Who articles will suddenly vanish from the encyclopedia without Sceptre around. There's always plenty of people willing to contribute to the various pop-culture stuff. Badger Drink (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think if he were to go, someone else would rise to take his place. While this may seem counter to general "Wiki" philosophy, I believe that in certain situations, too many cooks do have a way of spoiling the meal - the final push to GA/FA status being one of those situations. Hence, people who have the capacity to contribute in a manner much like Sceptre back off, out of a desire to not interfere. The general culture against "me too"ism prevents said editor's voices from being seen much on Talk pages and the like - but it would be folly to assume they're not out there. Badger Drink (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite arguably this block should have been indef. Sceptre was supposed to have been on his last chance already. Giving him more isn't really justified, but I hardly care now anyway.
BTW, "jihadist" is hopelessly wrong. "Jihad" is a traditional Muslim concept of justified, defensive warfare whereby certain behaviours (the killing of innocents, for example) are strictly prohibited. It also a wider sense as "struggle" - overcoming the evil within yourself, for instance, can also be described as jihad. Bin Laden and his lot totally fail these tests, I think. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jihad as an agressive war is certainly not outside the traditional concept of Jihad. This is made worse by the fact that some argue that any attack to reclaim an area that was historically Islamic is defensive in nature. But yes, jihadist is in any form hopelessly POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The problem here is essentially that of Muslim tradition doing one thing and saying another. While Jihad in the Koran is not particularly aggressive early Muslim history consists of, well, large-scale violent conquest. Moreschi (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not agressive in the Koran? Mohammed takes over the entire Middle-East as Jihad. Not much of that was anything remotely resembling defensive war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, difference between theory and practice even then. But lines will always be blurred. The Roman Republic never unleashed the legions until it had thoroughly convinced itself that it was under threat, even against the most negligible adversary. Same process no doubt at work in the early days of Islam. It's surprisingly easy to persuade yourself that you're in serious danger, and must therefore do one to others before they do one to you. Moreschi (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As inhabitant of a territory that to had to fight for 800 frigging years just to reconquer what the Jihad warriors had taken from us, and which is still being claimed by the most radical muslims as the arab territory of Al-Andalus, I'll say that I find Koran's most ardent proponents to be a tiny little bit on the "too forward" category, independently of what the Koran actually says about Jihad. As Moreschi says, one thing is what the Koran says about Jihad and a different thing is what people calling themselves "Jihadists" (or, more accurately, people looking for validation to their lifes from a superior instance) will interpret from reading it. The point here is of Osama considered himself a Jihadist, if I have read it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the previous blocking and unblocking admin, my comment on this situation is Sceptre proved himself willing to undo his vote commentary, which is exactly the kind of behavior we look for, being able and willing to remove your problematic comments is a Good Thing, no matter what whining comes of it. Second, in my judgment Parisianblade inflamed this situation. This doesn't excuse Sceptre's behavior in anyway, but baiting restricted editors is a no-no. Third, all in all on balance, Sceptre's behavior seems to be run of the mill, this editor needs a trout and tea break, no reason to make a production out of it. In the time of his unblock, he did good work, responded to reasonable admin intervention, and also got into trouble: its not like we havn't seen that out of a lot of other editors on this wiki. Also, can we please not get into an argument about terrorists and jihad and such?--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else aside, I just have to say, the thought of Osama Bin Laden coming out of his cave to sue us for libel over a wording difference amuses me. Grandmasterka23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No remember the concern is Do No Harm. Obviously there's serious harm from labeling Bin Laden a terrorist. Someone in the US Government might read this and decide to put him on the no-fly list. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joking aside, I mostly agree with this summary. ParisianBlade has not been the voice of reason. Sceptre is indeed often willing to respond to criticism. The argument about terror vs. jihad. vs. whatever-else doesn't belong here. But I don't agree that his actions were run-of-the-mill or were within the bounds of normal editor responses. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, calling him out for "trying to cause drama" definitely wasn't the best way I could have handled the situation and I tend to have a low opinion of him in general because from my perception he has a bad habit of acting unilaterally and thinking that his opinions override consensus and in certain situations trying to edit Wikipedia from a non-neutral POV for his own personal gain (e.g. removing legitimate references to specific websites from articles simply because he has a problem with the site). There was an incident awhile back where we got into an edit war and he ended up reverting my notice of the edit war from WP:AN and lost his rollback because of this, since then I've had a hard time dealing with him. If you'd like though, put a restriction on me interacting with him directly for a certain period of time (if I have a concern about his behavior, I should just report it to an administrator instead of confronting him directly because this just inflames the situation more often than not).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator and unfamiliar with Sceptre's case, but the other day I asked him to reconsider an unnecessarily inflammatory and inappropriate statement, and he reconsidered and even removed it. From reading the WP:ANI thread dealing with Sceptre's early unblock, I understand there were concerned voices. I believe Tznkai bears the unthankful responsibility of watching over Sceptre and keeping him out of trouble, otherwise it's just another case of giving enough rope ... I guess Sceptre was responsive to my concern because I didn't order him to do anything but asked him to think about it. Which brings me to what I actually want to say here:
Echoing Jayron's comment about "incivility for incivility's sake", this is precisely what is not needed. I too am among those editors who believe that WP:CIVIL is often used as a weapon and injustly and against common sense and against the encyclopedia's interest, particularly when good contributors get poked, pestered, and baited (all in a civil fashion) until they snap. This wasn't the case with the incivility referred to in this thread, and I interpret it as a misguided imitation of some of our more vocal contributors, because their outspokenness gets attention.
I would like to point out that it doesn't help when we applaud witty editors for clever and biting replies. Chuckle silently, but the cheering in the peanut galleries can lead to the misconception that there is something chivalrous about being rude. There isn't. Recently I saw someone characterize a very dismissive and sharp statement that led to a block as "pure class". I often disagree with these blocks of productive editors for being uncivil, but I also disagree with encouragement, backslapping, and the notion that it is somehow "cool" to be rude and witty. It's cool to be witty. Sometimes despite the accompanying rudeness, but never because of it. In a collaborative project, there is nothing recommandable about rudeness or hyperbole for its own sake. I ask Sceptre to think about this too. ---Sluzzelintalk10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Mister Alcohol is an active, unblocked account, I don't see why we would delete or blank it at an IP's req. Point at OTRS/MFD. MBisanztalk17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– Stifle is right. Where a fair use claim exists (even a malformed or incomplete one) or where the speedy is contested, just take the image to IfD or one of the various pseudo-speedy deletion routes available for images. Don't reinsert speedy tags, it isn't worth the trouble. As for the policy question of where I9 ends and NFCC 2 begins, that is both easy to answer and beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images. Could someone else have a look and give a second opinion please, as I'm going off-wiki soon. Thanks. — Tivedshambo (t/c)18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for also the fullCSD I9 criteria reads (Bold markup added by me): "Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." A.P falls under this, and make it more clear I have proposed adding "and from press agencies such as the Associated Press (A.P)" to that just to make to even more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter who's right as to the applicability of CSD:I9. The speedy tag should not have been replaced after it was removed in good faith. All of these images are already at IfD for discussion. Just have the community discussion. What's the rush? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone: In case i9 is not clear enough with the comment "This includes images from stock photo libraries..." perhaps it should be further clarified. Beyond that the Non-free contentPolicy, under Unacceptable use - Images, clearly states: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos.Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is. The fact remains that the CSD was removed. The proper course of action after that is to have a discussion (which is already taking place at IfD), not to edit war and replace the tag. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please back up. Issue 1 - images at IfD. In case you, or anyone else, has not looked, the Nom (not made by me) reads, in full, "recent photo by news agency. fails Wikipedia:NFCC 2 (they charge for this use, we are basically stealing this from them) and Wikipedia:NFCC 8 (this photo doesn't significantly add to the readers' understanding, seeing as it doesn't even show that much)." That alone is pretty clear but I did the leg work and found that A.P licensing doe snot allow for "fair use" of this type, it is already covered in the i9 CSD tag and thusly, I am the one who added the i9 tag. That is fully acceptable and is done all the time. What happened next is the really issue. Issue 2 - removal of the tag. Another editor came in, decided it was not a copy vio because a FUR was being used and than implied that MSNBC/AP "borrowed" this image from Wikipedia and removed the copyvio tag. That is the issue that kicked this off. I reverted because the removal of a blatant copyvio for the reason MSNBC might have taken a Wikipedia image is ludicrous. Now the editor said that i9 for "fair use" images but, as was explained in the actual nom, this is not really an allowed "fair use" image. The Policy is clear on these types if images and so is the i9 tag that was removed...again after it was restored by me. It takes more than one person to edit war but there is no requirement that a blatant copy vio needs to be discussed beyond the point it is confirmed as a being blatant copyvio. Certainly not because an editor does not fully understand a CSD tag and how it relates to these types of images. But even if they do not understand that the actual CSD when it is explained, backed up by policies and discussions and restored explains but still removed that is far more of an issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD tags can be removed by anybody except for the person who created the subject of the tag. They should not be replaced. Instead, other methods, such as XfD should be pursued. This isn't complicated. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it isn't. Lets start over. What is the real issue here? It appears clear, to me anyway, that the editor who removed the tag is not fully understanding of the tag itself or the policies and guidelines that define what a "valid fair-use rationale" is. Aside from me I do not see where you, or anyone else, has attempted to answer their question which is: "User:Soundvisions1 is currently applying {{db-i9}} tags to certain images with valid fair-use rationales. I've removed these, as my understanding is that it doesn't apply to FU images." My reply was, and is, there is not a "valid fair use" rationale being used because the image is not allowed to be used with one. The {{db-i9}} tag is being used because "images from stock photo libraries" are considered "Blatant" copyvios and it clearly says that. To confirm you can also look at the "Non-free content" Policy, under "Unacceptable use - Images", wjere ti is even more specific: A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos. Now a second opinion is needed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's important not to leave likely copyvio's sitting around while the argument takes place. As wp:copyvio states, If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, you should replace the contents of the page with the {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} tag, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, it may be deleted by any administrator.Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point chunky, however if someone thinks the tags are being removed for bad reason (systematically over many images) I don't see much reason why we can't have the discussion here. Alternatively mass nom the images in question to an IFD to discuss the issue at hand. I will note that comments on *process* are not as useful as comments on the actual material at hand here.
The problem here is we have a bunch of tags added by one person and the same tags removed by one other person. My suggestion is to have a sane discussion here or elsewhere (perhaps WT:CSD) about the particular class of images. —— nixeagle20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←From WP:CSD: CSD I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". No mention of credible, valid, or otherwise. Therefore the tagging was incorrect. It's there in black and white. The correct tag is {{ifd}} or possibly {{subst:dfu|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just sated that the only thing i9 says is "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". Holy mouse turd batman! WTF am I reading than? I see: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images." I am going to use your oneline reading as a new proposal a CSD. I am seriously done jumping between three locations. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing issue with these articles and a homophobic anonymous user who hops IPs constantly to post disgusting things about Beacock. While the usual policy is to RBI, the fact that this happens so constantly makes me wonder if there is something more permanent that can be done. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It doesn't appear that this is an issue for AN, as there is almost no discussion on Talk:Wikia about this, so I'm closing this discussion. This is a content dispute, and requires no administrator intervention at this point.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage07:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that User:John_Reaves has been removing information from Wikipedia's article on Wikia. The info in question includes citation of a couple of columns in the UK's Guardian newspaper, both of which are critical of Wikia and to a lesser extent critical of Wikipedia's association with Wikia. The source itself is WP:RS, the removal of all information critical of a company in the article on that company here is inevitably going to draw WP:COI problems - especially given that some of Wikia's founders are active users here. As we are an encyclopædia and not a forum for commercial advertising, these selective removals of all criticisms of Wikia will need to stop - otherwise what's left is an ad for Wikia, not an encyclopædia article. I'd tried raising the issue on the user's talk page (as at first glance removal of valid info is a WP:VANDAL hallmark) but it appears that the issue has already been raised by others and nothing resolved. I'd prefer that this page not become the one that outside media link to as the canonical example of WP:COI when they attempt to assess the neutrality (or lack thereof) of the project as a whole. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I presume it should be OK to link to them and use them as sources. There is a lot of info in the Guardian piece which is currently missing from our article on Wikia and desperately needs to be there. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are opinion pieces not normal articles so there are limits to how much they can be used. But Seth F's opinions are notable (he's a notable commentator whether or not we have an article on him) and would be reasonable to include. There's really nothing this has to to with WP:AN. Now go back to the article and behave. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would contend I've written the best coverage of Wikia's problems regarding rebellion of its digital-sharecroppers. I realize my views of Wikipedia and Wikia are often at odds with those heavily involved in it, but my columns are far more than opinion. I do put a lot of research into the columns, they're not mere pontificating. Note the articles are written in the style of British journalism, which has some slightly different conventions than American journalism. But don't make the mistake of thinking those small stylistic differences mean inferior factual standards - the material is stringently fact-checked, as matter of Guardian policy, my own personal sense of ethics, and lawyers on the other side. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, sources with hard facts on Wikia are limited in number; as a private for-profit entity there is much which it is not required to disclose. Too much of what is available is itself blog or wiki, not the most reliable. As such, if we have any WP:RS (and The Guardian is mainstream and reputable) we do need to make full and effective use of these limited informational resources. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I had previously blocked this editor for three days for uploading copyrighted images with no FUR (Please check both deleted uploaded images as well as the first revision of uploaded images which have been properly tagged by other users.), hoping that they would stop and communicate. But no communication occurred. At the expiry of that block they began the same pattern--uploading images without comment or rationale. When asked to stop this time, the user blanked their talk page and began vandalizingpages in quick succession.
Given this return to disruptive behavior and the vandalism of pages, I have decided to indefinitely block this account for persistently uploading copyrighting images, making misleading or malformed fair use rationales, and vandalizing a string of pages following warnings regarding the above. I suspect this block is largely uncontroversial, but I'm submitting it here for review. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support block. This editor never communicated beyond blanking their own talk page, and Protonk's summary of events matches the contribs & talk page history. This editor was either unable, or unwilling, to discuss the possibility of following our image and copyright policies - and we shouldn't worry too much about which. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, when are editors supposed to report an incident to WP:AN/I instead of WP:AN? I thought that one was for more serious disputes, but I'm confused as to the difference between the two.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, ANI is really for all disputes, especially time sensitive stuff. AN is really for announcements and things like that (such as announcing an ArbCom decision that concerns admins or announcing a change in the blocking tool). In practice there's no much distinction now. As a general rule of thumb if something needs dealing with it should be on ANI. If it needs review or general distribution it should be on AN. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua has the basic rundown. I find between the two that ANI sees more traffic (lol, probably because WP:DRAMA redirects there) but that no one is going to get really steamed with you if you post a request in the "wrong place". Both are kind of general noticeboards. Actually, it looks like ANI sees about twice the pageviews as AN (or has over the past week). Protonk (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the myriad number of pages to check here, there and everywhere, how do we feel about merging AN and AN/I? I too felt much of the content seems to have merged. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heck no! The thing is so big that we have to aggressively move to subpages anything that gets more then a few comments, and you want to merge the two? I would suggest a WP:CN (community noticeboard for things of concern to the community) and AN for things that require
No! :) Too much going on in one thread. It's too bad. Dynamics of a system like this: popular, general processes are over-attended and parochial processes are backlogged. So it would probably be a net negative to split the noticeboards further. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fozzie and Protonk. AN/ANI can be hard enough for people with slow connections to cope with and mashing them into one giant page would be a nightmare. Sarah04:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of overlap, and people often use them as equivalents. Personally, I guess I figure it depends on how much the word "now" applies -- some threads need urgent attention and then become irrelevant after one or two responses (more AN/I), where others can serve as important points of discussion or announcement for a few days (more AN)... that's just my take on it, though. As has been mentioned, AN/I seems to get more traffic, and is therefore often more busy and noisy (sometimes that's good, and sometimes that's bad). – Luna Santin (talk)04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he does it a fair bit. Seems like more his being a jerk than actually attempting to out people. Nice to know that a sock has an obvious trait--makes it easier to find the new accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)
In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template.
Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate!(talk)
This arbitration case, formerly, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65, has been closed and the final decision is available here.Kuban kazak (talk·contribs) has been banned from editing Wikipedia-en for the duration of one year.
The case is also still "open". I figure this is just 'mid-clerking' and will be finished up. If so, I applaud the sentiment of coming here w/ the info before finishing up the housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I reckon in a couple of hours when normal people over here wake up, all hell might break loose - my gut instinct is that the block affects a substantial portion of users of two rather large ISPs. Brilliantine (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1) This hasn't ever happened before, I have always been recognised by Wikipedia as my assigned IP and 2) It is the middle of the night. It is possible it might not be such a huge number of users, but this area of London is pretty densely populated and this ISP has become fairly popular recently, so it will be a significant number at least. Brilliantine (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, as in within the last few hours. The strange thing is that other sites like whatsmyip.com still return the correct IP address, so it is a wikipedia-specific problem. Brilliantine (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally denied the appeal against the block, but then went off to sleep, and saw the resulting discussions and discovery this morning. I think it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency, as any new block may seriously disadvantage editors and anonymous editors. There have been new incidents of vandalism that at the moment are registered as coming from this IP account, and in other situations, another block may have been forthcoming. What I have done, however, is merely reverted the vandalism and formally issued a notice which I've kept at level 4 once it reached there. I've done that to show that there are ongoing problems that need resolution. However, leaving it as it is, unresolved, may well lead to other problems... DDStretch (talk)10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still disruptive edits from the address, and the IP was blocked again today, this time for 2 days (block now lifted). However, until this matter is resolved, it is likely to continue to occur that someone will block the address. I would suggest putting a note on the talk page advising blocking admins of the situation, but I don't want to give the appearance of "a license to vandalise". Would short term blocks of 1 hour at a time be appropriate, at least until the situation is resolved? In other words, treat the IP address as if it were a sensitive IP address? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What to do about comments from possible banned user at ACE?
I have no knowledge of the user or even the disputes at stake, but just wondering whether it was common practice to allow comments from a user who appears to be admitting to be a sock of a banned user. Brilliantine (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What comment? who is the banned user? (This summary is necessary for the dull witted like me. If the answer was in the middle of that giant WP:TLDR paragraph, then I didn't read it) Protonk (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is I don't generally agree with that policy, but there was something about that ramble that seemed to be disruptive as opposed to useful. Brilliantine (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. Honestly it seems pretty laughably unworkable. Most socks do hundreds of edits, usually good or neutral, before they are caught. I'm not sure why I would be expected to click "rollback" on all of them. However, it is nice to have it there, I guess. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive muscle power?
Can a few neutral editors with checkuser privileges and knowledge of Sikhs, Khalistan and Human Rights, please look into this case? I hope the following 3 editors are not being wrongly choked just because their povs and article interests are the same. I see that all their means of presenting data to tell why they are wrongly blocked are being cut: -
Beetle CT has asked for reconsideration on talkpage with some proof. Also check this ongoing resolution effort by some of these editors on the banning admins talkpage to get some perspective. Seems like before Irek Biernat and Singh6 could present facts like Beetle CT - Singh6 has been blocked again and now even the talkpage of Irek Biernat has been blocked stating "to prevent misuse". What talkpage misuse has Irek Biernat done? This new block on Singh6 and Irek Biernat is invisible one, which neither shows up in the page histories nor is listed on their respective user and talkpages, but only if their pages are in ones "watchlists". I can clearly see that muscle power had already forced these editors to compromise their personal information[40][41] [ (which kinda reflects their helplessness). I have earlier editing experiences of these editors and feel that they are not uncivil or vandals by any means, but I cannot check if they are being choked without much proof. I have tired to get some valid information from the blocking admin YellowMonkey but the replies came about not so direct. Before we end up choking out 3 genuine editors by unleashing quick excessive muscle power, can we have some more admins look into detail? I've underlined detail with focus here because these 3 editors seem to have editing many topics which are against the POV of Indian Government, about custodial deaths and have been involved in many debated topics. Therefore, there is a need for looking into detail if that does not become the reason for the motivation of a block and choking out despite inconclusive evidence. Regards, --RoadAhead=Discuss=07:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help at AIV?
Resolved
Just to let you know, there are some requests at AIV that have been sitting there for 10-20 minutes with no response, including one IP who is being very active right now and has vandalized 6 or 7 times since he was reported. —Politizertalk/contribs09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection needed
The Man article is in much need of semi-protection again as its semi-protection has recently ended and the high level of vandalism has started once more. The article always receives high levels of vandalism when not semi-protected due to the subject of the article. Can this article, given the constant high level of vandalism it is subjected to whenever semi-protection ends, have indefinite semi-protection like the woman article? The article should be treated like those of country or religion articles which receive high levels of vandalism and are given indefinte semi-protection because vandals won't just disppear when the semi-protection ends. It's an article which will always receive high levels of vandalism if not semi-protected because it's not a current event which may draw attention then subside. Usergreatpower (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b) After this incident, User:Moondyne chosse to follow my edits at WikiProject mathematics in a biased manner (after the previous incident, he decided to undo most of my edits without looking at my reasoning because he was apparently convinced that I am a malicious editor). He first reverted my changes to a stub template page and accused me of not explaining why I had made that change when I had indeed explained. Even after that discussion, most editors accepted my edits to be non-malicious. See this (two people accepted my edits to be non-malicious here) and this. In fact, if you look at the links, my edits were actually helpful in the end but not completely appropriate (but still appropriate and nobody is perfect according to a Wikipedia guideline). According to User: Moondyne, my edits were malicious since he threatened to block me (speedily) twice as the diffs in (a) show (see second and third diffs provided in (a)).
c) I accept that I did later on get angry with User:Moondyne because of him persistently threatening to block me and I should not have done so. This was however influenced by the following (next sentence) and by the fact that he did not bother to look at my explanations (reasoning which as in (b) people accepted to be correct) for the WikiProject math incident because he believed that I was a malicious editor after the previous incident (which I apologized for twice). He avoided my request two times (see also) that he should explain why he did not follow the guidelines (which I politely requested him to answer).
Since he did not respond to my direct question as to why he has not followed the correct guidelines, I presume that he has not. I would just like to understand why User:Moondyne (an admin) is not using his admin tools appropriately and would like to alert other users of this. My criticism is given above and I would appreciate an admin (or several admins) to have a look at that and judge the incident appropriately. I would also request that if User:Moondyne's warnings were inappropriate, he should stop threatening to block me (once again, please see above for all my reasoning).
Okay, let's see if I have this right. You vandalised a school article, then got huffy when warned (no apology, just a demand that the matter be forgotten). The admin who warned you then, correctly, had a quick look at your edits to see if you were vandalising elsewhere, and discovered that you were making ill-advised changes to a template, so reverted and warned you again. You then started wikilawyering that they weren't treating you by the letter of a section of subpage of a guideline and demanded, twice, that they did so, having issued a non-apology apology for your edits (with a promise to put them back in later). And Moondyne didn't use their admin tools once on you, so no abuse there, but then you ran to this board to complain that they had used tools against you.
No I did not vandalize a school article; I explained all my changes on the talk page (see the talk page of Christ Church Grammar School)
I apologized as two links showed (see this) and I politely asked him not that the matter be forgotten but that he does not judge me on those edits (which were not malicious). However he did so and undid all my edits from that point onwards without seeing my explanations.
No my changes to the template were not ill-advised; they were explained if you [see this [46] at WikiProject mathematics. I in fact initiated a discussion there. Also see this (two people accepted my edits to be non-malicious here) and this where people have mentioned that I had good intentions and that my changes were not malicious.
I don't understand what you mean by: 'You then started wikilawyering that they weren't treating you by the letter of a section of subpage of a guideline and demanded, twice, that they did so, having issued a non-apology apology for your edits (with a promise to put them back in later)' but I requested politely that if I had citations or explanations may I add back my previous edits as the diffs show. I also think that it was unfair for User:Moondyne to have not assumed good faith (please read my whole post).
He did not use admin tools against me but he wrongly threatened to do so
Lastly, I have requested that you see all the links provided and yet you have not done so. Please look at all of them before you respond again.
What a silly report. I have never yet seen Moondyne take any action on Wikipedia, administrative or otherwise, that I couldn't support 100%, and this is no different. Hesperian13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree. I've seen Moondyne over a very long period of time as a stable and mature administrator, and looking at his actions in this case I see him no differently - he has acted in the utmost of good faith in this situation. I find little to disagree with in Redvers' summary of the situation above. Orderinchaos13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me your reasons behind supporting Moondyne? Since you have interacted with him a lot, I would rather the opinion of an uninvolved admin. And I don't understand why this report is silly.
(edit conflict) Also, I would like to politely request that instead of assuming that Moondyne is a saint, look at the links I have provided and base your conclusions on that. Both users so far have failed to do so. I am disappointed at how some editors in Wikipedia behave inappropriately and don't use their power wisely (its just like real life).
Could you please give me your reasons behind supporting Moondyne? I guess I have a bad habit of defending outstanding administrators when frivolous complaints are made against them. Hesperian13:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at all of them. Every one. And they don't support your side of the story at all. In fact, your side of the story comes over as a failed attempt to put spin on a story to get someone else in trouble when they caught you in the act of vandalising an article. No admin tools were used against you. If you still have a dispute with the editor in question, other avenues are available to you. If you are just trying to get Moondyne in trouble, I'll tell you now that it seems unlikely to work. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm the uninvolved admin you mentioned: AFAIK, I've never been on the same talk page as Moondyne, let alone interacted with them (although ancient diffs may prove me wrong). By "uninvolved" did you mean "uninvolved" or did you mean "sympathetic"? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not putting a 'spin on the story' since I have accepted that my edits were not accepted as being constructive.
And I was not vandalizing the article since I explained my changes on the talk page. I am an established editor (not a hooligan) as I can prove by my 1500+ no. of edits and having created over 25 articles (see User:Topology Expert).
I am not trying to get the user in trouble; I am just pointing out that he should use his admin tools appropriately
(edit conflict) What about the WikiProject math incident? Didn't he act inappropriately there by undoing my edits without listening to what I have to say when several editors and admins accepted my edits to be helpful and appropriate. I also apologized twice and yet he still wanted to speedily block me. Shouldn't an admin follow the right guidelines? I was willing to edit in a appropriate manner since I ceased from editing that page after the warning. Why did he threaten to block me again?
You keep making this false accusation that the tools were misused. They were not. All that happened is that you were correctly told that misuse of editing privileges would lead to administrator tools being used. This is not inappropriate use of the tools. You'd be best advised to drop this matter, to be honest. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not drop the matter and listen to vain administrators who have far too much power for their own good. In fact, I am angry that admins are being biased and I might want to take the matter a step further.
Perhaps it would help if we demolished this one clause at a time. Let's start with "Spamming my talk page 4 times". He did indeed edit your talk page four times. And in regards to the same issue, you have edited Moondyne's talk page 14 times. As a self-professed mathematician, you will appreciate that 14 > 4. Will you withdraw your assertion that he has spammed your talk page? Hesperian13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can hardly wait. I think that TE's Christ Church Grammar School edits were done mainly in good faith. However they were crappy, blatant WP:OR and he/she then revert warred over them after several warnings not to, so it was reasonable to respond as though they were vandalism. (I had responded to a request from another user who sought assistance over the matter). I then observed TE's single-minded discussions concerning {{Algebra-stub}} and {{Geometry-stub}}here and here in which he was attempting to change the template image with one of his own preference. TE failed miserably to read the consensus from the polite folk at WPM. One user there possibly hit the nail on the head though[47].
Well no one agreed with that user who 'hammered my head'. See this. I did not fail miserably to read that consensus. See this and I can provide more evidence if necessary (User talk: Ben Tillman for example). I will get over it if you mind your own business and stop threatening to block me.
There is nothing incivil in the use of the word "crappy" (a word that simply means that the end output of your edit was not very good, not that you yourself are crappy). Above, we were about to go through your complaint line by line, but you said you were too busy. Now you're suddenly available again, please answer Hesperian's point about "spamming" of your talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consult any editor from WPM to remove any bias. Go on (or are you afraid that you will not get support). Since I contribute to completely different articles from Moondyne, I suggest that mathematics admins stick to maths and Moondyne sticks to W.A. I also request that he stops following my edits (if you do not wish to follow this request, consult a few editors from WPM).
Since I am editing math articles, let other such editors judge my edits. Or can't Moondyne trust math admins?
I just wanted to say that I am impressed by Moondyne's 45000+ edits and his contributions. He is certainly a valuable contributer to Wikipedia. But I just requested politely (and got impolite responses immediately) that he stop threatening to block me and following my edits. Is this too much to ask? Anyway, there are math admins for this (if at all it is necessary).
This looks to me like a ridiculously self-obsessed spurious complaint. I just had a look through this guy's edits and I think we're dealing with someone who is role playing.[48] I think we should just archive this discussion as reviewed by multiple admins and found to be spurious before this discussion winds up backfiring on our resident "expert". Sarah14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? I am not role playing (ask User:Hans Adler; that was an unrelated discussion). I am now convinced that non-mathematicians would not understand this disupte and hence I resort to my comment.
Consult any editor from WPM to remove any bias. Go on (or are you afraid that you will not get support). Since I contribute to completely different articles from Moondyne, I suggest that mathematics admins stick to maths and Moondyne sticks to W.A. I also request that he stops following my edits (if you do not wish to follow this request, consult a few editors from WPM).
Since I am editing math articles, let other such editors judge my edits. Or can't Moondyne trust math admins?
And I am an expert mathematician; take the word of someone from WPM (you can't take the word of a particular user at your convenience).
While I am at it, I would like to report User:Sarah for making a personal attack (by implying that I am not an expert and harrassing me per WP:Outing).
I am trying to create a Wikipedia account so I can upload some information. However, every time I try and create an account, I get the following error:
Login error Visitors to Wikipedia using your IP address have created 6 accounts in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed in this time period. As a result, visitors using this IP address cannot create any more accounts at the moment. If you would like to request an account be created for you, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account.
I am not sure why this has come up, as this is the first time I have ever tried to create an account? Please may you give me some advice as to what I should do?
There are such problems with IP's changing periodically but try after a few hours. If it still does not work, note it here and you will get assistance (or an admin will know what to do and will assist you immediately).
It looks like your IP has been blocked quite a few times. Are you a hoax (if it is not your fault, creating an account should solve the problem but that does not seem to work; best wait for an admin to respond).
No, there is a problem with this particular IP address at the moment. Everyone on an entire ISP is appearing to edit from it. This include for example me, and also User:Sceptre (with the result that I was autoblocked when Sceptre was blocked yesterday), in addition to, judging from the IP address' talk page, many other users -- Gurch (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) There seems to be a problem outside the control of IP users who are classed as using this IP address at the moment. The problem described here is another consequence of this problem (see section 39, above for more details.) In short, as far as I understand it: anonymous users said to be using 89.167.221.3 may not in fact be using this IP address. It is an unprecedented problem that does need some urgent attention. In the meantime, it may be best to assume good faith and help anyone wanting to create an account from there if possible (though I don't know how this is done myself.) DDStretch (talk)12:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both addresses seem to be a source of continuous vandalism when unblocked, and then as soon as they are blocked, a stream of near continuous requests from apparently unrelated people shows up demanding unblock. The first appears to be registered Be/O2/Telefonica and is apparently affecting customers in London, and the secons appears to be registered to Virgin Media and is likewise reportedly affecting many active British users. Can anyone explain WTF is happening? I have never seen this sort of problem before? Are we being had by a troll or group of trolls who are trying to fool us, or is this a genuine technical problem? --Jayron32.talk.contribs14:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Resolved. Enough of this. Martin 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)