Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.139.76.64 (talk) at 07:32, 18 November 2008 (→Problems with User:Yachtsman1: Sorted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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


    Would anyone mind if I blocked New York City for anon?

    I've got an IP-hopping blocked user who's irritating me. He seems to be jumping around a number of IP addresses - all with the same provider, all in the same geographical area. But new addresses every day.

    Would anyone be greatly worried if I just blocked all the CIDR blocks he's coming from, for a reasonable period of time? I think it amounts to a bunch of /17s - fairly big blocks; it's a big provider. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How many IPs does it cover? You should ask a checkuser about collateral damage. Enigma message 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Each /17 takes out 32.000 addresses. So I guess I'd have to block around 100.000 addresses to be effective. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.175.131 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relax, you're not in one of the blocks I've found. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I would be incredibly amused by it, I think that's a lot of collatoral damage. Is the IP's vandalism really that bad? L'Aquatique[talk] 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, it's just a banned user seeking to continue the "discusson"; I don't know if he's really done any vandalism yet, but this looks vaguely threatening. What I dislike about those blocks is tha the operator seems to make it VERY easy to get new IP addresses, which means that it's exactly the same as a dialup bank, and almost as bad as an anon proxy - more detail on the IP ranges involved at User:Alvestrand/DeFrancis notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    what i meant was, i would return to what the normal vandals you see the huggle reverting people revert do, the kind of vandalism that gets reverted right after you make it by cluebot because its so ridiculous... its amusing to see the warnings piling up like c*** on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.156.23 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i will stop because i found vandalising spanish wikipedia is more fun then here. i was accused of being molested in my house lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please only use rangeblocks in extreme circumstances, especially ones as far-reaching as the ones you're proposing. I see no reason in this particular case to take such an extreme action. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'll take your advice and not do anything more about him. Is there a way to watch contributions from all anons from an IP range? --Alvestrand (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could use Huggle for this if you created a queue with a regex matching the IP ranges you want. That would give you a live list. Alternatively, playing around with the javascript-enhanced contributions page, or the API (list=usercontribs), would allow you to see past edits from broad ranges, like 123.12* . Hope this helps  —SMALLJIM  15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

    Ease of editing section break

    This is also posted to the Arbcom page. However, this case was handled so badly by the arbcom, that I would like a parallel community re-evaluation. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

    I ask that we reopen the matter now.

    In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

    A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

    In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

    Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

    Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    [N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

    As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

    • Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)
    • No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


    His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

    To quote MastCell's response to the last:


    However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

    • "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.
    • "You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

    Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [1]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

    The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

    A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

    "Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

    The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

    Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

    Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

    I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

    Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

    I will gladly provide more evidence on request, however, I believe that this thread is already quite long.

    Thank you,

    User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I was not involved in or even aware of the "Matthew Hoffman" case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this appeal (the lengthy and somewhat confusing submission above does not help). However, as a procedural matter, I strongly suggest that this thread be archived without action. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday has also submitted the matter to WP:RFAR, which is where it should now be considered, not here. Moreover, WP:AP provides that "remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales." Shoemaker's Holiday has not shown that he has exhausted this venue of appeal before coming here. Finally, there is currently no policy providing for an appeal of Arbitration Committee decisions to the community. This means that any discussion here would probably only lead to fruitless drama. Nonetheless, I wish Shoemaker's Holiday all the best with respect to any personal problems the arbitration may have caused or aggravated. Sometimes, it's best to just let things go. This is only a website, after all.  Sandstein  05:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SH has a right to ask the community's input IMHO, I've not read the details but note that a recent RfC made by Charles Matthews is meeting with a very different fate.:) Sticky Parkin 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Sticky Parkin. The issue here is oversight - who polices ArbCom wehn ArbCom screws up? The ultimate oversight is the community as a whole, and AN provides a location for editors, especially admins who as a rule have been around longer and have demonstrated commitment to the project, a venue for discussing anything of concern. Clearly this is an example of something of concern to us. This is a website afte all - a website that functions only because of the voluntary labor of its editors, and we always need good editors. In fact, there are many essays on the problem of losing good editors. Shoemaker is or at least a valued editor and a good example of the kind of editor we should fight to keep and not hang out to dry, in my opinion. Am I wrong? Let us administrators review the facts and weigh in with ideas and opinions and suggestions. It is nice to think ArbCom has second chances to reverse its own mistakes, but when a real travesty of justice is possible, the community ought to examine the case and weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid this looks to me like venue shopping. It is as good as stated above that the main reason for asking for "community" input is that ArbCom won't change their minds. Anyway, what are we being asked to decide? Even if the block of MatthewHoffman was 100% solid there were other FoF points as well. Sure, people have got away with worse, including me, probably, but this seems to be a simple case of an appeal based on not liking the outcome rather than any policy grounds. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reformatted to a transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman in the interests of preventing forest fires.--Tznkai (talk)

    Reporting a possible vandal

    Iamthenew!! (talk · contribs) acts like a vandal. Many of his recent edits need revert. Please consider reviewing his activities. huji—TALK 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the history behind the original !!, are we sure there's not something a bit trollerific going on here? It just seems hinky to me, claiming to be "the new" incarnation of a user whose block led to one of the most contentious ArbCom cases in WP history, and an equally-controversial desysop...they might as well have named themselves "ArchtransitsBabySister" or something like. Just one user's opinion, of course....GJC 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't necessarily have to refer to User:!!. They might just be ordinary exclamation points tacked onto the end for emphasis.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review

    Bringing an issue here for further review.

    For the last several months, WP:MOSNUM has been the site of a protracted edit war. After this sequence of reverting in early November, I protected for a week: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

    Following unprotection, the edit war resumed among:

    User:Tony1: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]: warning
    User:Locke Cole: [18], [19], [20], [21]: warning
    User:Arthur Rubin: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]: warning

    I proceeded to warn them that further warring would result in blocks being applied. Subsequent to that, Tony1 called for me to "resign immediately" for warning them.

    Later, Kotniski (talk · contribs) [27], [28], [29] and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) [30], [31] resumed the edit war. I warned (Kotniski warning, Pigsonthewing warning) them both, taking into account that Pigsonthewing had never commented on the talk page and had 10 prior blocks for edit warring. Kotniski accepted the warning and agreed to not war further on the page.

    Pigsonthewing has demanded I apologize and User:UC Bill has insisted I apologize to Pigsonthewing to stop embarrassing myself.

    As I believe I have acted within policy here, I bring it to the wider community for further review. MBisanz talk 16:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse warnings. An extra note: the warning was modified in Pigsonthewing's case, and this was necessary. However, following the modification, the demands and commentary by both Pigsonthewing and UC Bill were unreasonable and utterly inappropriate. Given his history, and the recent disruption caused at WQA, he's indeed very lucky that he wasn't blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You continue to behave in an inappropriate manner. I demanded nothing; my wording was "You have just made a false accusation on my talk page. Kindly withdraw it, together with your unwarranted threat; and post an apology"; and later "I ... note that you have slightly modified, but not withdrawn, your false accusation. Please do so now". You also give a misleading diff for the warning you placed on my talk page; the correct diff is this one. I have participated in no "edit war"; and you fail to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, if the guideline is under a protracted editwar and had to be protected... then can someone tell me why on earth bots like User:Lightbot got approved by bag? (I also note that there are some other users that are also running manual scripts that do this same thing) Part of running bots is having community consensus as well as approval from BAG for what modifications you are doing to a page. If there is a general clear consensus (meaning somewhere public with input from multiple editors...) would someone please show it to us? —— nixeagle 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed this is the heart of the issue, and the one I find myself having the hardest time dealing with. There's no clear consensus for deprecating full date links, and yet a handful of editors (including Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) insist on updating their JavaScript files to remove these links in the course of other (perfectly normal) edits. I've warned multiple editors about the lack of consensus and the disputed nature and all of them either ignore my warnings or tell me there's consensus (without actually showing me where this community consensus was reached). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, although I think those who edited immediately before the protection should have been warned, as well. I can't say I liked the tone of the warning, but it seems appropriate.
      However, I think the guideline needs to continue to note that the consensus is disputed, so that discussions can continue on the talk page. That's most of the changes I was making. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The pet peeve of the same few editors who are loudly complaining about a change after the fact should be seen as just that, and not distorted. The change gained consensus after two years of intermittent debate at MOSNUM talk, and intensive debate there and elsewhere during July and August, plus VP notification of the proposal, plus apparently easy acceptance at FAC and FLC by nominators, plus a groundswell of acceptance/favour more widely in WP. Several people, including some represented here, are doing their best to disrupt the project to push their agenda. This should be ignored. Concerning the "warnings" by MBisanz: I believe that you are breaching several tenets of the policy concerning the behaviour of administrators (have you read it?), and I believe the call to resign was reasonable. I'm quite willing to discuss the details if you wish. Tony (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only distortion going on here Tony is from you. A small number of editors at WT:MOSNUM do not get to force their idea of how Wikipedia should be on the larger community. I've seen discussions with hundreds of editors over smaller changes than this, why should this be different? Why should it be enacted with such a small amount of input from the community? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • LC, how helpful do you think your edit summary "Tony you're delusional" is to this discussion?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • About as helpful as Tony insisting I should "do some work" when the work he'd have me do is the very thing I'm arguing against. And truth be told, he must be delusional if he thinks this change had "wide community consensus" when the straw poll at WT:MOSNUM involved twelve editors. Yes friends, twelve editors are pushing this change on the rest of the community, often in protracted edit wars. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a need for any more drama over this particular issue, but maybe we can take an important lesson from it. It is clear to me (having been involved in and witnessed a number of such situations) that the procedures (or rather absence thereof) that we have for changing our "rules" (policies and guidelines) are not working. There needs to be a properly thought-out process ("meta-rules", as some call it) for the making of substantial changes to the rules. We can't have a situation where reams of virtual paper are used up arguing circularly about whether some rule has consensus, should be marked disputed, etc. We do have a kind of procedure described at WP:Policies and guidelines, though it deals mostly with new policy/guideline pages rather than changes, and I don't know if it has yet been put into practice. Whenever I raise this issue it is met with silence or dismissals about "instruction creep", "against the Wiki spirit" and so on, but I raise it here again in the hope that the issue being discussed will serve as a good example of why such change is badly needed. If anyone's interested we can perhaps set a separate discussion page on it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A sensible structure would have technical stuff like this handled by a committee along the lines of ArbCom, not by any random editor who wants to "volunteer". looie496 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I kind of agree. Non-admin closure of discussions is problematic even in other areas (AfD, RM and so on). For big and complex discussions, I wonder whether closure shouldn't be done by an ad hoc committee (and with dialog first) rather than a single admin who happens to come along. But these are issues to be discussed elsewhere. As far as policy changes go, I'm inviting comments on my recent bold edits at WT:Policies and guidelines#Recent changes re changes.--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, what I meant is that MOSNUM policies should be decided on by a special committee. looie496 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why MOSNUM specifically?--Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with having policy changes in general (and MOSNUM changes in particular) finalized by a special committee. I still think MBisanz owes Pigsonthewing an apology since (regardless of previous, unrelated actions) he didn't do what he was accused of doing in this case. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3RRBot

    I've recently programmed a bot that monitors the RC feed and attempts to detect editwars and disruptive behavior. You can see it's current reporting page at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. It has already found one editwar/problem and is likely to find more at a rate of about 1 per hour. I would appreciate it if admins would keep an eye on the bot's reporting page and deal with the cases as they come up.

    I have plans for the future to have the bot automatically spot blatant violations of 1RR restrictions, and monitor pages under probation and report incidents. (probably to a different reporting page then the current one) —— nixeagle 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Useful and reduces need for report. As long as there is a level-headed admin monitoring the page, it is ok. --Tone 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a great idea! Maybe the reporting page should be moved to a subpage of WP:AN3, just like how cluebot reports vandals to AIV? Just a thought. Tiptoety talk 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try make the page archive every day instead of every 2 days. Otherwise the page will be way too long. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a wiki, all ya gotta do is change the template to 1 day... however as you requested I'll do it for ya. :). By the way the bot was down today due to a utf8 encoding error which I did not find out about until now. I've fixed it and the bot should be back up and running. —— nixeagle 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good idea, provided of course that an administrator makes the final call, so an innocent user won't be blocked for undo-ing a couple of n00b edits or vandalism. Also, maybe it would be a good idea to program the bot to place a templated notification on the involved users talk page, in case it hasn't already been done. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre edit attribution

    Please would a patient admin look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Canterberry.2FOlana_North and note the bizarre edit attribution which may or may not be some form of attack on a user "Pigsonthewing". If there is something to "do" about this, please can it be done? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they were both by the same IP.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I earlier this evening anon-blocked for a month. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See this debate on WT:RAIL. This is a simmering fight that's been going on for over a year now following an IMO very harsh indefblock on User:Canterberry. (Short version: two users were creating sock accounts to votestack a trivial debate in opposite directions; one was blocked for three days and told not to do it again, the other was indefblocked. The original sockfest that sparked it was here.)
    If nobody minds, I've "unresolved" this thread; given that there's already a discussion on WT:RAIL about whether to appeal the block, now's as good a time as any to canvass opinions from outside the somewhat incestuous "writers of articles on rail stations" world as to whether this block should be overturned. – iridescent 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no strong views on this except that ascribing one's edits to another editor, for whatever purpose, seems prima facie dishonest and disruptive, not least for the false positives it can raise. That's the reason for my block. Full disclosure would be helpful, but in the murky world of the politics of railways in the UK, who knows what danger may lurk?</sarcasm> --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the IP is Canterberry/Olana North – looking over its history, if it is then he's been having a number of conversations with himself. (The IP is Network Rail's server, so its having an interest in trains isn't particularly surprising!) While I wouldn't rule anything in or out, in my experience it isn't Canterberry's style. – iridescent 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no view on the actual identity of the IP editor; it is enough that s/he sought to represent themselves, although clumsily, as an established editor, hence the block. I checked the WHOIS before blocking, but as you say, there is little forensic information to be gained from that. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock?

    Seems to me there's only one way to settle the issue, and that's to ask the thorny question - should either Canterberry or Olana North be unblocked? The block is an indefinite block, not a permanent block. It has been in place for over a year, which some editors think is excessive.

    Proposal either Canterberry or Olana North is unblocked, and allowed back into the Wikipedia community. If unblocked, then a period of probation should be served, and if the behaviour which led to the original block should reoccur, the block is to be reimposed.

    Other conditions may be proposed and discussed. Let's discuss the issue and reach a decision. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When was the last activity (proven, admitted and/ or suspected) of this user's sock puppets? The most recent I'm aware of are: admitted: 6 October 2008; suspected: 14 November 2008 (a sockcheck shoul probably be run on the latter). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the initiator of this thread over at WT:RAIL (and the original filer of the SSPs back in 2007), I obviously support this unblock on the proviso that he'll be reblocked if he gets disruptive, and that Canterberry and Lucy-marie steer clear of each other (shouldn't be too hard as Canterberry in all his incarnations only works on transport articles, and since the original incident L-m has steered clear of transport and now works in TV and politics articles). Yes, Canterberry's a block evader, but under his sock Olana North account he by-and-large made uncontroversial improvements to rail transport articles, not editwarring or POV-pushing. – iridescent 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block being removed on one of the accounts. Canterberry/Olana North can be a good editor when he wants to be. I think it is time that he was given another chance. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Canterberry was originally blocked for making personal attacks on another editor using multiple sockpuppets - it was the personal attacks that led to the block, not the sockpuppetry. So I think the issue should be whether Olana North was engaging in personal attacks. I agree with others that the Wikiquette alert in early October wasn't about a real personal attack.

    The block was indefinite in the sense of having no fixed end date, and I quote myself from last November "Indefinite does not mean "forever". Indefinite means "without a pre-determined end date", and can generally be lifted when there is reason to believe that the problems that led to the block will not be repeated." [33] The user has had bad timing; one night while commuting home I'd decided to lift the block only to go online and discover the use of a new sock puppet. So I said we should talk again in December. Instead of taking a break, the user abused the unblock template enough that another admin choose to protect their talk page. Last I knew (sometime in Q1) it was suspected but not proven that Canterberry was editing under a new account and I didn't bother to investigate - so long as the personal attacks weren't occuring I didn't care. I still feel much the same way - so long as personal attacks on editors are not occuring I really don't care whether or not this user is editing. If the Olana North has not been making personal attacks, then there is now reason to believe that the problems that led to the block will not be repeated. Since I'm mostly inactive and have therefore resigned as an admin I won't be implementing whatever decision is reached by the currently active members of the community. GRBerry 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit of advice, from admin to admin...

    If a deletion discussion on (for example) a company is started, and a group, say, Wikiproject Companies throws their entire weight behind 'keep' - what is there to stop all the other contributors being overwhelmed by the sheer number of 'votes' (I know they're not votes, but a 90-10 split is going to win, good arguments notwithstanding) from Wikiproject Companies members? Is there a policy which prevents groups of related contributors from 'ganging up' to save articles? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: this has nothing to do with the AfD I'm currently involved in, before you ask! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote policy and guidelines, and hope for a sympathetic closing admin? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is to say that the members of Wikiproject companies would all vote keep though? I would think that the members of a Wikiproject would have views on deletion as diverse as any other group regardless of the article. If such a group were to rally to the cause however, part of adminly duties is to weigh canvassing accordingly. Icewedge (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot hold belonging to a group against a user - this requires us either to abandon AGF, or to get rid of groups. That said, a wise admin would look at the reasons and not just the numbers. If 90 people poll one way with the same reason, and it is a great reason, well, there cannot be anything wrong ith that. If 90 people poll the same way and do not provide reasons, I'd say they aren't taking the process seriously. The reasoning, and the degree to which it engages issues raised in our policies, is the ultimate issue and anyone who votes should bear that in mind if they want their vote to mean anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the dangers of WikiProjects. If they do not include people who are not fans of foo then you get the situation we have with ice hockey, where a pile-on will happen in any deletion debate for a third level amateur team whose only coverage is the occasional mention in the results pages, and for which zero non-trivial independent sources exist. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So the moral is, that if there is a project doing things you do not like, join it. Increased participation solves many problems. I've done that a few times, once when I thought a project [34] was keeping too much unencyclopedic content, and an added opinion to what was at the time a minority view there helped change things a little. DGG (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It can be a pretty depressing affair when a project canvasses all its members via a newsletter, and they all come trooping in to "KEEP" an utterly nonnotable exemplar of the subject matter of their project, responding to ad terrorem arguments that "If the deletionists knock off this one, then nothing will be safe." AFDs are so thinly attended that 10 canvassed proponents of something generally overwhelm the usual AFD participants. Edison (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly why we count arguments against policy rather then heads when closing AFDs. A good closing admin should be able to handle the multiplication of arguments to avoid and jusde the rest against policy. Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In an ideal world, yes. But vote counting is what actually happens, and taking all but the most egregious cases of poor admin judgement to DRV make you look like a tool, so... HiDrNick! 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is what we do, after all. --NE2 15:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic website...

    I have come accross a website that displays wikipedia and adds ads. http://www.juz2u.com/WP:AN The evidence is linking here on this noticeboard. There's even a list of mirrors! What's the next step? --Mixwell!Talk 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know. But I do know that the Firefox ABP absolutely loves their site... J.delanoygabsadds 05:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check this out: http://www.juz2u.com/Special:MyTalk. Can someone go to m:Live mirrors and fill out a report? I don't have time, I really have to get to bed. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Report made - sleep well ;) Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, don't sleep too well. Live mirrors aren't blocked or anything... WODUP 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with live mirrors? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Live mirrors like that steal our bandwidth just to serve ads—while we may be committed to produce a free encyclopedia, no one said we had to give away bandwidth for free. The server admins tend to block this kind of stuff on sight. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion

    I came across Minicalc and couldn't find a criteria for speedy deletion it would go under. A7, which excludes software, seems to be the closest one. I searched through the muck of the internet and only came up with a Yahoo widget link with under 100,000 downloads. So my question: What speedy criteria does this fall under? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not everything that doesn't belong here qualifies for speedy deletion. In fact, most doesn't, which is why we have an elaborate policy. The speedy deletion process is only meant for the few obvious, undisputed cases where a discussion would be a waste of time. Minicalc is not such a case. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I honestly figured Afd would be a waste of time for this article; but there it will go. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always just prod it and see if anyone actually responds first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed WP:PROD is a good middle ground. It gives involved editors the chance to improve the article where deletion (not speedy deletion) is fairly obvious, but where any AFD is likely to, given the current state of teh article, result in a snowball delete... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only downside is when the author does a kneejerk de-prod (which is in accordance with policy), thus sending it to Afd anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lutz Heilmann

    Slashdot has a story about the German Wikipedia having some legal trouble with a member of the Bundestag (Lutz Heilmann) over the content of his article. More eyeballs on the en version of his article would be appreciated. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My very limited German suggests that the sources for what we've got seem to check out. But a competent German reader should be asked to check our article and its sources as a matter of urgency. The lawsuit against de.wp looks correct - see [35] and it is even mentioned in our wikipedia article too. I'd also suggest that we semi-protect this article as a precaution. This story will break and certain trolls will stir it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're going nuts over this at de.wikipedia.org… Last version of the article that I saw (diff) looked O.K. Semi-protection would be a very good idea IMHO.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd fully protect, I can't see any harm in doing so, per WP:NLT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why WP:NLT suggests to lock down the article? But I'm not an admin, glad I don't have to worry about that. So far, Lutz Heilmann seems to be moving, in fits and starts, towards better comprehensiveness and accuracy. Sure has some people riled up, though. Most of the "He is a mean %&$§" comments came from IPs, most of the constructive edits came from registered editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Danish, French and Norwegian Wikipedia entries on Lutz Heilmann have not been updated to reflect his temporary injunction against wikipedia.de, German also does not show it (but did at several points in the article history -- article is now locked following a humongous edit war and wheel war between several admins centering on BLP policy), only Swedish shows the latest information.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's deja vu all over again: Tron_(hacker)#Naming_controversy.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected for 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently, more than 50% of that article are taken by a section detailing his lawsuit against Wikimedia Deutschland and editors. Why? This seems to be a most absurd case of recentism and navel-gazing. In other words, is this lawsuit such a defining moment in this politician's career that more than half of the article should be about it? Where's our sense of proportion? 131.111.223.43 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, it's thus far not a defining moment and deserves at most one sentence. He allegedly Template:De icon said that he is satisfied with the article now, so it's going to be old news pretty soon, and all we're left with is an increase in donations. :) --AmaltheaTalk 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone from an IP address recently deleted the article (and I put it back). It might be worthwhile to keep an eye on it again and/or protect it, in my 'umble hopinion. Scbarry (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog

    Resolved
     – Being cleared. Guest9999 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion seems to be developing a bit of a backlog, nothing massive but 50+ speedy taggings to be reviewed. Guest9999 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    50 is as small as it ever gets. 150+ is on the low side of a backlog. BJTalk 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of depressing. Guest9999 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would that be depressing. This is a large site with plenty of admins to do the work. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not enough if 150 speedy candidates is considered a small backlog. Guest9999 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err...check out CAT:BACKLOG, if you really want to see some truly impressive backlog totals. 150 is on the high side for the speedy deletion category, but not overall.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you need to consider is the size of the backlog compared to the number of deletions occurring over a given time. The number on its own means nothing. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the backlogs in CAT:BACKLOG could be cleared by any user, they don't require administrator attention and a lot of them aren't necessarily that vital to improving and maintaining the encyclopaedia (e.g. copying images to Commons). The quick assessment of speedy candidates is (in my opinion) one of the things that stops the content of Wikipedia being reflective of the content of the internet as a whole (i.e. 99% crap - apologies for the language). Whilst you're right that - to an extent - the number itself is less important than the rate at which articles are being deleted given the typical rate of speedy tagging it should not be necessary for a backlog of 150 to build up on - as you say - "a large site with plenty of admins to do the work". What lead me here initially was not specifically the number of the backlog but the fact that an article I'd tagged (pretty standard A7) did not appear to have been reviewed by an administrator for several hours, longer than I find is typical. Guest9999 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of block of 84.102.229.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) requested

    I have enacted a 1 week block of the above account following two edits today to Rotary International. My rationale is that the ip is editing an article, and referring to another editor, in a manner that is consistent with that which prompted an earlier sanction. Given that all previous edits by this account are related to the same subject, and over an extended period, I am confident that the sanction now imposed will not effect other potential editors. However, since no warnings were provided prior to my enacting this block I am placing it up for review and would comment that I need not be consulted further should the decision be that the sanction be varied in any manner. I shall, of course, answer any concerns raised here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway, user:Prebys

    Resolved
     – Resess blocked as a sockpuppet bibliomaniac15 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A number of editors keep deleting things from the Paul Pantone article and continue to insert wrong information. The archive reflects non of them have made constructive contributions to the article. Pantone was locked away in 2005, there cant be any doubt about this, I'm not confused about the date, I've also added sources. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the drive-by editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted.

    • I corrected it,
    • I asked for a 3rd opinion[36]
    • The reviewing editor put the wrong date up again.[37] and deleted my request.
    • No explanation was given.[38]
    • I again ask for an explanation,[39]
    • The response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute,[40] There is no dispute, the sources are correct.

    In my opinion this is an important article in the days of recession. Pantone is an American inventor and hundreds of GEET engines exist. here is a video see what we are talking about here. here are hundreds of engines just like it Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors all running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)

    Last time I checked cited sources are not overruled by anything. The editors are not contributing anything, all they do is delete things. All I did was correct a date. I ask what was wrong with having the correct date on the article over and over again. Eventually Arthur Rubin says he agrees to have the right date on the page, then he changed it into the wrong date again. The date is wrong, I added the sources. More I cant be expected to do.

    I've made a few additional edits just to be sure, indeed all of those got reverted. They deleted things like Paul Pantone's own homepage, the building plans, the news coverage then put the article up for deletion. It's like they are playing some kind of game. Resess (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some examples:

    Sources confirming Pantone was locked away in 2005:

    • Instances of inserting the wrong date to make it look as if Pantone didn't spend the last 3 years waiting for his sentence.[52][53][54][55][56]

    Then say on the talk page "I have no objection to the date of the start of this incarceration appearing in the lede, but I think it's after his guilty plea in 2004."[57]; next thing they change 2005 into 2008 again and say: "You don't have my permission to add incorrect BLP violations to the lede".

    As if I would need Arthurs permission to change something that is clearly wrong? I remember the date! If I'm not mistaken here is the court recording????? Here is a news article and here is the Pantone defence program. End of discussion! I don't need permission from Arthur Rubin in any way. If he claims it was in 2008 he should prove it? or not?

    All this deleting and obstructing while not contributing anything constructive to the article. In stead of accepting it happened in 2005 not in 2008 the original author of the lie made up another lie:

    • Article:"Con él, los coches podrían funcionar con una mezcla de agua y de un hidrocarburo."[65]
    • This translates to:"With it, cars could run on a mixture of water and a hydrocarbon."

    The editors user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway and user:Prebys have nothing constructive to offer to the article. They edit the article numerous times, non of their edits are constructive contributions in any way. You can compare their version of the article to my version here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Pantone&diff=252171421&oldid=252166153

    I don't see any reason to delete everything I added. There are thousands of GEET engines, Pantone has been waiting for his sentence for 3 years. user:Arthur Rubin, user:Guyonthesubway and user:Prebys want to make it look like his lives work was nothing but a marketing stunt. This is disgusting but that is besides the point. It is clear they lie and haven't contributed anything constructive. All they did on this page was delete things and lie about it. A new excuse was made up with every deletion. There is much more nonsense going on on the page, but I will leave it to this. At this stage I would like to learn what this show is suppose to mean. Thanks, Resess (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for providing all this detail, but I'm pretty sure you're in the wrong place. There's nothing for an administrator to do (we can't judge on content issues). You may like to visit dispute resolution and perhaps copy over what you've put here to any of the avenues available there. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I understand why you think that. I've changed the title to better reflect the purpose of this posting. Let me try to explain. This isn't about Pantone you see. This is about the editors. The editors are clearly being dishonest. They've deleted all my contributions to this article without so much as one valid explanation, then they also insist upon having unsourced lies in the article. It misrepresent the person.
    Lies are not content disputes. Changing dates, deleting citation and deleting sources is clearly vandalism. Insulting me, deleting 8 references, citations and insert a lie all in a single edit?
    There can be no doubt about this group of editors. They very obviously want me to leave the article alone so that they can continue to misrepresent Paul Pantone, Arthur Rubin stated I need his permission to edit the page. His reason was that my contribution would be a BLP violation. This is nonsense.

    Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Basic_human_dignity

    Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
    Arthur Rubin clearly has no respect for the person or his rights. The great mis justice done to Paul Pantone should go in his biography if the sources are sufficient. The page should not have imaginary evidence against it. It cant be that this group can add unsourced lies to the page while disallowing sourced facts. That's not how wikipedia works. I'm posting this so that Administrators can put a stop to their game. Perhaps I should look a bit further and see what other articles they have under their control. That would help clear up the confusion. This is not about the content, it's about misrepresenting the inventor.
    But I thank you for your insight, Resess (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This still appears to be a case of edit-warring over content, and I've protected the article. dougweller (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, but there seem to be some comments that fall foul of the BLP policy on the AfD for this article. Could someone who knows better please take a look. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some statements that fall foul of the BLP policy in Resess's version of the article. Use of audio transcripts of a court hearing, posted on a Pantone supporter's web site, doesn't seem appropriate, especially since the claimed reason the judge gave for declaring him incompetent is legally incorrect, and hence the statement is a BLP violation against the judge. As for respect, I have none left for Resess, but I believe Pantone to be a (former) fraud (as found by the court) and a loon, as found by the judge and the institution in which he is presently committed. The statements Resess is adding have no justification, although some of the statements he removed also have no justification. As I noted at the AfD, I'm sure he's notable, but I'm not sure we can say that he's notable without violating WP:BLP.
    And it's not about Pantone. It's about Resess's blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP and WP:3RR. I think this article needs to blanked if it's protected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per a recent checkuser, Resess has been indefinately blocked as a disruptive sock puppet. Can we mark this resolved? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Hoffman case

    In a continuation to the above, perhaps a further note will explain things better: In this case, they claimed that I blocked Matthew Hoffman in the middle of a content dispute with him. Finding of Fact #4 states this bluntly

    This is an utter lie: I had last edited the page where Hoffman was active 7 months previously, and had had no other contact with him. This was pointed out on the evidence page itself, where Carcharoth discovered the 7-month-old editing. [66]

    It is possible this was in error, but the problem is mentioned several times on the talk page for the proposed decision, in one case even getting a reply by an arbitrator to a different point in the post.

    That having expressed a view 7 months previously was a content dispute will, I am sure, be news to everyone here, but FT2, who claims to have carefully reviewed all aspects of the case, is right now claiming the accuracy of said finding of fact has never been in question, and so there is no reason to look at the case's procedural aspects.

    I have actually spoken to Jimbo about this case, but in August, he got busy, and in his own words, "dropped the ball", unable to continue.

    I do not ask for my adminship back, I simply ask that the arbcom remove a case that included grossly unfair behaviour by them and a strong attempt to blacken my name without concern for the facts of the matter, to the point of making up a content dispute that never happened, then defending their wording on the case's talk page.

    The Arbcom have been traditionally allowed to act without any monitoring or accountability, and this culminated in the Matthew Hoffman case. I would ask that the community re-reviews this case, and makes it clear that gross incompetence and harassment by Arbcom will not be tolerated. should the arbcom continue down this route, they shoould be disbanded. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    In Finding of Fact #9, *UNPROTECTING* a page I had edited, after another admin, evidently unaware of the protection, nominated it for deletion, was cited as evidence of conflict of interest on my part. Even in the revised 9.1 (only revised after two months of about a dozen editors protesting its unfairness), I am accused of protecting a page on November 30th, citing vandalism, when none occurred between 27 and 30 November, and the arbcom concludes that clearly my intent was in fact to furrther my position in a content dispute.

    Had they looked at 25 November, they would have discovered multiple IPs vandalising the page, and people tripping over themselevs in efforts to fix this that consistently failed to revert back far enough. The page was very poorly monitored at the time.

    This is in addition to all the other problems mentioned above, but these two small incidents will demonstrate why this case needs reviewed by the community, and why Arbcom are probably incapable of reviewing it fairly.

    The arbcom needs to gain some accountability, and the community reviewing what is widely agreed to be its worst-handled case with the exception of the Orangemarlin one is, perhaps, the best way to insist on this accountability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading through your own statement about the protection, I see you admit having protected a page due to vandalism, despite the fast that the page hadn't been vandalized for 4-6 days (depending on the relevant times of day). If the wave of vandalism is over, I fail to see why protection is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a year. As best I can recall, there had been waves of intermittent IP vandalism for some time, and the page was already having trouble with edit wars, so a little precaution seemed in order. I don't seem to have edited it between the time of the vandalism and when I protected, so I probably put the semi-protection in when I noticed.
    It is possible the semi-protection was unneeded. But this is not what the Arbcom claims, they claimed it was specifically used in an effort to push my point of view. There is no evidence of this, unless the arbcom claim the ability to read minds, and this example was part of an apparently exhaustive list of every questionable admin action I had ever done, part of which appears on the evidence page, and the page protection checks seem to have been done by Kirril. If any relatively new administrator could withstand an exhaustive check of his actions, with the presumption being bad faith, without anything coming up, I would be surprised. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So a finding of fact said you blocked during a content dispute, but the diffs clearly show this to be false; you pointed this out repeatedly, and the arbs ignored you, or else replied but didn't address the point. Huh. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience with arbitration. Tom Harrison Talk 14:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, we're a pretty dense lot. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it did happen simultanious to the Arbcom elections and their aftermath, but, you know... The whole thing is full of mistakes, many of them quite possibly made in good faith, but which went uncorrected when pointed out (possibly because no arbitrator bothered to read the commentaries, presuming other people would - the controversy this case arose at the time created some of the largest talk pages for a case ever.) However, even after the case, I've found the rbcom highly resistant to any sort of productive discussion on the case, so I've kind of been forced to come to the community. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbs presumably are partly human and sometimes what they write in their findings and decisions will be at least partly mistaken. We do need to have a way of dealing with those past cases if that happens. Or do we have one? :/ Sticky Parkin 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In theory, they can be appealed to the arbcom, in practice, the Arbcom almost never does anything once the case closes. Perhaps we should set up an ombudsman committee to deal with reviews of Arbcom cases? Independence from the Arbcom might make corrections easier, as it would be fresh eyes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The community can give the greatest number of fresh eyes, more hierarchy seems to just lead to more people who can be buttered up or influenced. All it needs is for arbom to be more approachable and amenable, to strike out or remove things they've said that are in error or excessive. Sticky Parkin 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick summary might be, that the request, acceptance, opening, and final remedies are all completely within usual norms. The persistent misuse of admin tools from October 2007 right up to the day before the case request on Nov 30 2007, was serious and repeated. Discussion is ongoing at WT:RFAR. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess that answers my question. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe within the norms but some of the findings were false. That is an unwarranted slur against someone and those bits should be scored out or annotated as being found to be incorrect. Saying anything they want against people and not correcting it in a proposed decision or decision page if it's found to be untrue might be the occassional norm for arbcom- to be able to have a go at people and leave it to stand as a judgment against them even if incorrect- but that doesn't mean it's ok. Sticky Parkin 18:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2, after your behaviour in the Orangemarlin case, you might want to be a bit more careful. The only one from later than october was a semi-protection of a pafge trhat had underwent heavy IP vandalism a few days earlier. The finding, written by you, claimed there had been no vandalism in the two days previous, and accused me of therefore clearly doing to further my position in a content dispute. Your conclusions were a gross assumption of bad faith, and I'll point out that Wikipedia:Protection policy does not give a number of days after which semi-protection can be presumed unnecessary after a heavy vandalism attack that had editors tripping over each other for hours before getting it set right. If you do believe that errors of judgement made in good faith are worthy of the most strenuous persecution, perhaps you would care to resign over the Orangemarlin incident, to prevent appearance of hypocrisy? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this case is subject to a request for arbitration appeal AND is being discussed on the talk page of RfArb. Given that parallel discussion are usually unhelpful, could we archive this thread? I see no specific admin action required here - this is for arbs.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all respect, I'd be much more comfortable if this case is handled in the light of community scrutiny. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With respect, arbcom is the FINAL stage in dispute resolution. You are appealing to them, this feels like forum shopping. Do I have a seconder to archive this? There is no admin action required, or even requested here, this is not a general community discussion board.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shoemaker wishes to notify the community through AN of his appeal, and extend his arguments here. That argument has been taken up. While I am concerned about the discussion spreading across Wikipedia chaotically, this discussion seems to be destined to run its course naturally anyway.--21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think archiving this now would be unwise - better to let the thread run its course. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It loosk liek this thread will probably turn out to be unneccessary, but, you know, it was very hard for me to start the appeal int he first place, and this does keep down the stress a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me give a quickl summary of the way this case proceeded:

    • October: Reviewing some of the pages related to intelligent design that I didn't have on my watchlist, I notice a problem on the Irreducible complexity page. Several pages of discussion have sprung up around a single user. Reviewing the user's contributions, I find a lot of incivility towards other contributors to the page, and a strong POV-pushing element. I fail to notice how heated the argument was among the other contributors, and thus see Hoffman's actions in a more negative lighted. I block Matthew Hoffman for a short period to stop the disruption, and take it to ANI. On ANI, it's suggested he's probably a sock puppet, and, as the disruption was severe, I'm perhaps a bit too willing to believe this, and up it to indef.
    • November: Charles Matthews contacts me about Matthew Hoffman. I fail to realise Charles is an arbitrator, he never says, nor does he give any real reason for the unblock other than things on the lines of "I think you should. He e-mailed me, and I don't think he's a sock". I suggest he suggest a review, and am told I should handle it myself, so I start a review.
    Review starts, becomes rather heated, but I eventually unblock.
    • December: Arbcom case initiateded against me, by Charles. There has been no dispute resolution, nor have I ever been the subject of so much as an RfC. It is now two months since the block, and the person is unblocked. Within twelve hours, before I have made any sort of statement - and based solely on this single two-month-old block, that has already been undone, Uninvited company proposes I am desysopped.
    • December to January: During the case, every single one of my blocks is reviewed on the evidence page. Every single page protection will be reviewed by Kirril as well. I was one of the admins active in attempting to clean up the Creationism and Pseudoscience sections, which very few other admins covered. Kirril lists five things where he felt I used admin tools to further my position in a content dispute, however, major controversy arises, with dozens of people speaking up against this finding, as it included such thigns as protecting a page on the version I was not advocating for the end an edit war, and unprotecting a page that had entered AfD. After 2 months, and an arbcom-initiated RfC that condemned the finding as completely inaccurate, FT2 rewrites the finding, keeping most of the content, but with more description.
    • January: I leave Wikipedia. Durova contacts me and encourages me to join commons. I reluctantly do so.
    • February: Decide commons images not that useful if unused, set up Shoemaker's Holiday account for adding them to Wikipedia. Do nothing else on Wikipedia, and suspect I will abandon account soon enough.
    • April?: Make a few tentative edits to Wikipedia. Feel dirty about letting myself be drawn back onto the site that had treated me like that, but eventually get drawn back in.


    FT2, you claim this case was well within Arbcoom norms. Can you give a single comparible example, where a two month old block, already lifted, leads to calls for desysopping, and Arbcom enters into the spirit within twelve hours, and harasses a productive contributor off the site, searching through the editor's admin tool use with a fine tooth comb in order to find more evidence against him, and voting down any finding that might mitigate his actions - like the strong evidence of Intelligent design promoters having organised campaigns against Wikipedia, dismissed as irrelevant in a case over the blocking of a intelligent design promoter? Several times during this case, the Arbcom claimed I didn't need admin tool use, I could continue mny productive contributions to content without them, and thuss dclared all my content production irrelevant at the same time s driving me off the site. Did I mention that at the same time they harassed a prerson with dozens of FPs and, I dunno, maybe five or six FA credits off the site they were talking constantly about how they needed to protect newbies, our future contibutors?

    If FT2 can show a case at all comparable to this one, I will be shocked and surprised, and we probably all will be shocked at the content of the case FT2 has found. Or is the similar case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions and accusations

    I have been recently been involved in a couple of extensive discussions with User:Gwen Gale regarding some deletions she carried out. These discussions have not gone well, and have ended up with me being accused of breaching quite a few policies. An outside view would be appreciated here. The main discussions can be found here, here, here and here. TigerShark (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen Gale's unwillingness to discuss what seem to be reasonable concerns raised by TigerShark is unsettling, and even more so is accusing an editor of harassment for continuing to discuss something in a civil way. Regarding the accusations of wheel warring, whether it was or it wasn't seems rather trivial given the nature of it, and regardless Gwen Gale could have at least attempted to discuss it with TigerShark; it does not seem helpful to demand someone undo an action before you will even discuss why. 4I7.4I7 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance, it appears that TigerShark is harassing Gwen, stalking their deletion log and refusing to take simple answers at face value, then wheel-warring on it. Gwen stopped responding, which is what we recommend people do when they're being harassed, so the harassment has spread here. TigerShark, when someone tells you they don't agree with you but you're welcome to take the matter to the appropriate forum, is it your normal practice to leave post after post after post after post on that person's talk page, wheel war and then come running to AN? If so, do me a favour and stay off my talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this discussion carried on over at my talk page (here) may be relevant. Or it may not. Those looking at this should be aware of it, though. TalkIslander 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I have to concur with Redvers, TigerShark. You appear to be picking nits over Gwen's deletion history because you disagree with her (and many other editors') interpretation of A7; and badgering her over them. If you feel that the policy is vague or misinterpreted, take it to the appropriate forum, don't harass a colleague over her reasonable interpretation of it. — Coren (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing with Redvers as well. It looks to me like you (TigerShark) are hammering Gwen and refusing to accept her responses. I don't think there's any problem with what she has done or her declining to restore the pages and instead referring you to an appropriate forum. I feel you should leave her alone, go focus on something else for a while and then take the pages to DRV/AFD if you still feel strongly about it. Sarah 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with Redvers; if you had taken the same path with me, you'd have been discussed on AN long before it got this far. Gwen has been exceptionally patient with you. Horologium (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Try WP:DRV first. Or just undelete and send to AFD. Anything other than complaining on a personal basis. — CharlotteWebb 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Sarah's summary above. TigerShark, you were within your rights for about the first hour of your discussion with Gwen. After that, you should have taken the discussion to DRV, not continued to try to continue a conversation she clearly had no willingness to continue.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

    I keep noticing that there is a quite large number of indef semi protected user talk pages of administrators and active vandal fighters around, in violation of WP:SEMI. Some examples:

    • Enigmaman since 25 July 2008, following three heavily vandalistic edits by a dynamic IP
    • MBK004 since 26 July 2008, following four vandalistic edits by two IPs
    • Arbiteroftruth since 22 August 2008, following one vandalistic edit by an IP
    • Shapiros10 since 24 August 2008, following three nasty vandalisms in a seven day period
    • Krimpet since 18 October 2008, following ten heavy vandalistic edits in a ten day period, with two shorter semi-protections.
    • PMDrive1061 since 19 October 2008, following two threats by a dynamic IP
    • Alison since 21 October 2008, following two vandalisms by a dynamic IP
    • Dbachmann since 1 November 2008, following a rant/trolling (in three edits) by a static school IP
    • NawlinWiki since 13 November 2008, following heavy vandalism

    Those are just some names of over 800 pages (some of the archive pages though) that I recognized. I only had a quick look at the page histories around the time they were protected, but none of them warranted the indef protection. The two that were hit the hardest are from admins, and those should at least offer some other on-wiki way for non-autoconfirmeds to reach them (a scratchpad).

    There are also a number of IP talk pages in that list. Now I really can't think of any justification for that, even an indef blocked IP who abused his talk page should get a chance for a block review every couple of months.

    I suggest that all protections in the list be reviewed, and unless the user is inactive or the block log or the editor can point to "heavy and persistent" vandalism, the protection should be lifted (or reduced to at most a week if it was protected recently). I can help by talking to editors and looking at histories and contributions, but would need assistance to actually lift those protections. There are just so many that I can't go around and request unprotection for each one by myself.
    AmaltheaTalk 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say on the rest, but Alison is semi-retired and probably doesn't watch her talk page enough to catch the attacks--I think protection is a good idea for her page. GJC 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, like I said, if an editor is inactive then it usually makes sense. --AmaltheaTalk 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for notifying me of this thread (There wasn't any). The reason I protected mine is more than just minor vandalism. I received an email via emailuser from a vandal that I am still dealing with stating that as long as he was able he would set my talk page to auto archive rapidly after each post. I do not use a bot to archive my talk page and the clean-up from that takes too long for my liking. Because of this, I have remembered to set-up an unprotected talk page for those at User talk:MBK004/Anon. -MBK004 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't send any notifications since I in no way intended to complain about any of the editors above, they were really only meant to serve as examples. IIRC most didn't protect the page themselves. And I don't really want to discuss the specific reasons for the protections here, or summarily unprotect them, that's why I indicated that the editors in question need to be consulted.
    What I'd like to discuss is the ongoing practise to indef protecting user talk pages in the first place. Unless there is really heavy long-term vandalism or an editor retires I'd think they don't ever need to be protected for over a month. Apparently those protections tend to be forgotten. --AmaltheaTalk 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected Shapiros10's talkpage mentioned above, after a particularly nasty piece of IP trolling. I indeffed because I didn't particularly want to set an end date, given the situation. However, I have to admit I forgot about it, and the editor never came back to me to ask it be lifted. Given that, I'll lift it now. Black Kite 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much the same as Black Kite. I protected Krimpet's because of some off-wiki drama that was sparking some nasty, heavy vandalism over a couple days. She wasn't around, and I didn't set a time, as the off-wiki stuff tends to carry on for a while. She may not have even realized I'd protected. I'll go lift it now. لennavecia 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (after multiple ecs)I think admins whose pages are not being vandalised and are engaged in blocking and deleting pages should unprotect their pages or at least have a separate page for IPs and new users to leave them messages, ask questions etc. I don't really think talk pages should be protected unless targeted by vandals and then generally only for a limited period. Longer protection could be used in certain cases of long term abuse and harassment but otherwise I don't think it's a good idea. A couple of years ago I protected my own talk page several times due to long term vandalism and harassment from a banned user and after a few weeks I was prompted by another admin to unprotect it...its possible some of those people just need to be reminded that their page has been protected for a long time. Sarah 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-lurk) I can explain my talk page. While I'm loath to leave it semi'd indef, I'm basically retired now (or on break, whatev) and my page was a daily target for vandalism. This had been going on for months and was not a simple case of "two vandalisms". There is the concept of a "personal army" where a vandal can go to somewhere like /b/chan, and ask /b/tards to vandalize a page with the same message. Basically, blocking can't do much about that as each vandalism comes from a different IP address. When this happens day after day, it just becomes a time-waster. I'm checkuser on the English Wikipedia and myself and other checkusers are constant targets; I'm thinking of Rlevse, Luna Santin, Thatcher, Avi - all the busiest checkusers. And folks like Nawlinwiki and Tiptoety. All get daily onslaughts from /b/tards. As I'm not here now, I'd rather not have others waste their time reverting vandalism every single minute for hours on end. Hence the semi-prot. Having said all that, I'll lift it now, go away again and see how things go ;) - Alison ❤ 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alison, I think those are examples of appropriate protection. I don't think there's a problem with people who are being targeted in this way having their userspace protected. Sarah 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aargh, I shouldn't have picked any examples, I really didn't want to put anyone on the spot, sorry. As I said above, if an editor is inactive then semi-protecting it makes absolute sense, an anon won't get any help or answers there in any case.
    Also, I'll keep your page watchlisted and will request page protection myself if it gets ugly, to try and contain the spirits that I called ... ;)
    Cheers AmaltheaTalk 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with userspace/usertalkspace being semied---though a scratchpad would be an important addition for users who intend to leave their pages semi-protected indefinitely. The rationale for limiting protection in articlespace doesn't hold up for user talk pages. Open editing as a project goal doesn't mean open communication. If a user feels that reverting vandalism on their own talk page isn't worth the effort, I'm happy to endorse an indefinite semi-protection. If WP:SEMI says otherwise, we should think about tweaking WP:SEMI. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the argument against semi protecting talk pages, especially of admins, vandal fighters and deletion-taggers, is that they are supposed to be the first contact for editors if they get warned, or their pages get deleted or nominated for deletion. In particular (and that's how I got alerted to that), if a speedy deletion tagger has his talk page semi-protected then a new user who created a page with his first edit and finds his page deleted, with nothing left but the warning on his page, has a hard time figuring out what has happened if he can't talk to the person who left the warning.
        There needs to be some obvious way to get into contact with them. --AmaltheaTalk 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By "scratch pad" I think Protonk means a separate unprotected page for IPs and new users to use, which sort of removes the issue of being able to leave the admin/editor messages. I agree that admins blocking and deleting need to be willing to accept messages from people but I think a separate page is okay if it is clearly linked from the main talk page. Sarah 23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, me too. --AmaltheaTalk 23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah is correct. Part of me says that admins shouldn't semi their own pages--the temptation to semi everything and be done with it is too great. I would, however, be amenable to protecting someone's talk page at length upon request. That seems like a small distinction, but it is important. Likewise, if an editor plans to deal w/ new/IP editors heavily, they should have a scratch pad. But I don't think that we should treat their talk pages like we treat articles. The primary distinction is that we have a public interest in open editing of articles where the benefit from open editing of talk pages is small by comparison. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Sarah and Protonk here. At least 80% of the pages on the list are user talk archives that nobody should be editing anyway. All of semi-protected IP talk pages I looked at were either blocked open/zombie proxies, IPs of known banned users, or school IPs associated with extensive vandalism. More than half of the main user talk pages on the list belong to editors who are known targets of vandalism, and those were just the names I recognised. I don't see this as a big deal, generally speaking. Risker (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 362 of the 810 pages currently listed there are normal user talk pages. I didn't filter if there are any that don't belong to an existing account though. Less than I expected, but more than 20%. Cheers, --AmaltheaTalk 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to semi-protection being lifted from my talk page. I requested semi-protection a few months ago and Krimpet kindly obliged, but didn't set an end date. I should have asked another admin to lift it after a few weeks, but I simply forgot about it. Enigma message 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NawlinWiki's talk page is almost constantly under attack by grawp's band of /b/-tards. If the page history isn't showing much, it's only because he regularly deletes & restores to remove the garbage.. I suppose now that regular protection & move protection can be set to expire independently - that would be the way to handle it, but I usually just let him unprotect when he's up to dealing with the nonsense. --Versageek 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My talkpage gets unprotected occasionally, and I tend to re-sprotect it the next time it is being trolled. This is really a question of WP:UCS. It does no damage, it helps keeping the project sane and avoids wasting more time than necessary over trolling - it serves the project hence it's a good thing. I had a rather immature exchange over this with AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) in the past, who seemed to be thinking admins sprotecting their talkpages were immoral, licentious bastards indulging in luxuries denied to the common man. In reality, the people who need to sprotect their talkpages in the first place tend to be those doing the more thankless and tedious jobs of dealing with disruptive editors. This really shouldn't be an issue, and perhaps WP:SEMI should be modified so that it stops being brought up on a technicality. --dab (𒁳) 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm personally more curious about the large number of user talk pages that are fully protected (excluding archives, of course). A number are indefinite vandals doing some nasty death threats and like but it's a little extreme for a lot of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirected page to I am going to rape your children and mutilate their dead bodies with my penis. - Well, I guess that didn't take long :/ - Alison ❤ 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (thanks, Versageek ;) )[reply]

    I think it's important to give these pages a chance every so often (in the case of Alison's, it has failed within 8 hours); however, I also think that the semi-protection should be indef - this would prevent vandals from waiting until the moment of expiry and immediately vandalizing it. I see no problem with such semi protection, provided:
    1. It is clearly necessary at the time of protection.
    2. There is some other clearly designated page for anons and new users to post to the user in question.
    3. Protection is terminated within a reasonable amount of time; what's considered reasonable depends on the amount of vandalism, the likely need for new users and anons to contact the user, etc.
    עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong with indefinetly protecting serious vandals' talk pages - if they've demonstrated that they have nothing to contribute, why enable them to waste more time through asking for block reviews which won't be granted? I also don't see anything wrong with editors being able to request that their talk pages be Indefinitely semi-protected - given that it's OK to remove any messages you want from your talk page under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, what's wrong with giving people the option to not be harassed by IP editors and people who've only been registered for a few days if they so wish? - if IPs and new editors want to complain about them they can use the relevant article talk pages or something like ANI, or just wait a few days until the semi-protection doesn't apply to them. I've seen good editors leave because they feel that vandals are given too much leeway, so why protect the 'rights' of unproductive editors at the expense of people who are trying to do the best they can? Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that we are also losing potential new editors with the semi-protected talk pages. A non-autoconfirmed user will typically not find ANI. If all he knows is that the page he created is gone and that the talk page of the admin who deleted it can't be edited, then that might be it. And I don't think the indef protection is necessary in most cases. As shown above there are a significant number of cases where it is, but most of the vandalisms and talk page threats come from vandals who aren't persistant, and who won't deliberately wait until the protection is lifted. Maybe an escalating protection time (30h - 10 days - one month) is a good alternative to indef protection. I'm sure that every active editor here can muster up the patience to test the waters every month, and protect/request protection again if needed. --AmaltheaTalk 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to solve all of this is to ensure that all users are getting a welcome message. In that, they've got the links they need to get help no matter what. It gives them the helpme template, links to various help desks and noticeboards, and of course various pages of info. As far as the semi-protection of admin talk pages, perhaps it would be best to tweak the policy and recommend an unprotected scratchpad/talk page for IPs, though in some cases, I think such pages will just end up being vandal sandboxes. Alternatively, a note at the top of the talk page recommending users who are unable to edit the protected page to instead use the talk page of [whoever], perhaps the protecting admin (some people also have mini-directories of "helpful editors", which could be linked to). I do, however, agree with others that in any case where I would use indef semi-protection, setting a time would be rather unwise, considering the circumstances of the vandalism for editors like Alison, Krimpet and NawlinWiki. An even better remedy would be to lock editing of the wiki down to registered users, but that's a whole 'nother debate. :) لennavecia 13:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page is protected as well, after I been harrassed for months by ED trolls earlier in the year, in cases of harrassment, user talk pages should be semi-protected. Also note that I agree with Sarah and these editors should have a nononsense seperate talk page in which IPs and new users can comment you. I created one right now. Secret account 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a relatively easy solution if semi-protecting user talk pages is necessary (which it clearly is for some users). Just create an editnotice for your talk page (Special:Mytalk/Editnotice) and that will automagically appear when someone tries to leave you a message. You can then link to an unprotected talk page, and watchlist it for messages. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say, set an expiry sometime in 2027. No one using Ctrl-F will notice, since it's not indefinitely protected. :P J.delanoygabsadds 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle, edit notices won't appear if can't edit the page, but only view the source. Try it at George W. Bush. --AmaltheaTalk 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see consensus here

    It seems like pretty much everyone here is under agreement that it is ok to semi-protect the talk pages of editors who are receiving constant IP/new editor vandalism, as long as there is an unprotected page available for IPs and new editors to post to, and that page is clearly linked to from the talk page. It is also accepted that full-protection of a blocked user's talk page is acceptable to avoid vandalism. This second one is already enshrined in WP:PROT, and I will alter the policy page to reflect the first item. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked images

    Those links should really be addressed if anyone has a few spare moments. Those are our articles, not some WikiProject subpages, and it's embarrassing that so many have so many obviously broken links. Any help in cleaning up the mess would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok can someone help me out here, i was having a crack at this list, and somehow broke the infobox's image section on this page, Blackpool Seagulls and cannot for the life of me figure out how to sort it. Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Template:UKIceHockey team template is broken when there is no logo. A note to this effect appears on the discussion page for the template dating from Sept 2007, but nobody has fixed it. looie496 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick fix to hide it if no logo is provided. --AmaltheaTalk 19:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, MZMcBride, I was just attempting to do it like you did. :) --AmaltheaTalk 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes if nothing else it will avoid encouraging users to re-upload images which were probably deleted for a good reason. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can run the list through ImageRemovalBot -- that should get most of them. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The list I made there is actually only some of them (about 1,000 out of 16,000 (with duplicates)). Let me know if you'd like the full list. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would. --Carnildo (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    tools:~mzmcbride/wantedfiles.txt.gz. Apparently the list has some false positives because Commons doesn't keep a clean house... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those seem to be people trying to embed offsite links, which of course isn't possible. Wouldn't it be possible to get the bot to automatically remove any image whose filename begins with "http://"? Would there be false positives in that case? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ImageRemovalBot can handle removing them just fine. The problem is finding them in the first place, which basically requires direct database access: there's no log of images being added to articles. --Carnildo (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to start going through links to Image:none and there are probably some other frequently used names that could be worth checking. hbent (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, can someone take a look at Template:Infobox_DRCongo_Province? It's forcing images for the flag, seal and map. I'm concerned that I'll break something even more if I try to fix it. hbent (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's got two problems: it's forcing images, and someone thought that putting "none" for the parameter would hide the image. --Carnildo (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As to how to find links to off-site images, I've just added the string "Image:http" to User:Lupin/badwords. All edits matching any string on this list can be monitored in real time at User:Lupin/Filter recent changes by any user who has installed User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Title blacklist request

    I'm trying to create Talk:(+)-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid but the blacklist doesn't let me. I think it may be because of one of the rules for "excessive punctuation". This is not the first time I've seen false positives for chemical names. Is there any chance that the rule can be relaxed? If not, can someone at least create the talk page for me? Thanks. --Itub (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Created.. feel free to remove my silly comment from the top of the page :) --Versageek 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Itub (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we are using the title blacklist rather than the abuse filter, it is possible to set it up so that rollbackers are not affected by the list, rather than admins? Just a passing thought. HiDrNick! 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's possible (yet), but it sounds like a really good idea to me. --Conti|✉ 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After a little research, it looks like all it would take is a developer adding the "tboverride" permission to the rollbackers group. Here's the current configuration. If there's consensus to make the change, we could also add "unwatchedpages" (access to Special:Unwatchedpages) to the rollbacker package as well. HiDrNick! 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed on the Village pump. HiDrNick! 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I remember that the title blacklist (or username blacklist?) used to tell the users about which part of the blacklist they just violated, but as I tested the above term I just got MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit instead, which does not contain the regex that was triggered. Is there a way to change this? --Conti|✉ 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bsrboy and Plymouth

    Banned User:Bsrboy keeps evading his blocks and editing Plymouth. In the last few days, he's made a number of reasonable edits as User:Vittel Salt and User:Samuel Anthony Davidson, till blocked. His last action was to put the article up for Peer review in accordance with his earlier stated aim of getting GA status for it. I don't imagine that he's going to stop, so is there any alternative to just letting this /new account→edits→CU→block/ cycle continue, with the likely end result of a GA that's been mostly optimised by a banned user? Does that matter? (For reference, an earlier discussion about his behaviour is here).  —SMALLJIM  12:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's doing good work, why block him? --NE2 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because some users do not have commons sense. They believe in a strict set of rules that must never be bent or broken. Also, if he's doing good, which you have admited to, why bother taking him to the slaughter checkuser house in the first place? 206.71.52.13 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he's already been banned by the community, and a ban applies to the person, so any sockpuppets are banned too. That's the position according to policy. But you've raised exactly the point that I'm trying to clarify. If he could somehow prove that he'd given up the vandalism, incivility etc., I, for one, would be in favour of eventually rehabilitating him. But that's not yet the case: [67].  —SMALLJIM  23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Glad to see you read it) It's petty incivility. Why do you even care, if I call him your bum-budy? I wouldn't have said it, if you didn't do it in the first place. 206.71.52.13 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV Ringing Up Reports

    Looks like we're going to need alot of extra eyes on WP:AIV today. Its ringing up reports like no tomorrow and backlogging nonstop :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hectorian and User:The Cat and the Owl disruptive editing, revert wars, pov pushing and vandalism

    The last consensus from 12:10, 12 November 2008 of the page Macedonia was interrupted with the POV edit "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia"[68], with no evidence/sources submitted about this personal User:The Cat and the Owl opinion. Since then this page has been a target of very well known Greek nationalist editors trying to push this POV not supported by a single evidence. Can something be done about this disruptive editing? Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, User:Alex Makedon has broken 3RR on the Macedonia dab page ([69], [70], [71], [72], plus previous revert-warring on 12/13 November). Note that he is currently page-banned from a closely related page, the Macedonian dab page, for similar reasons, under WP:ARBMAC. User:The Cat and the Owl, User:Hectorian and User:Avg are tag-team revert warring against him. The over-the-top style of accusations here (false "vandalism" charges, again) is nothing new, we had similar disruptive complaints from him during the last few days. Somebody got a good supply of salmo macedonicus handy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    there are three POV pushers disruptive reverteditors, and you find relevant naming something, how was it' only a page ban from one single page after all., and one revert and three edits between 16/11 and 17/11. Talking bout objectivity...Alex Makedon (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tudor Rickards

    Hello.

    I have some concerns regarding this article but am not really sure where to start Tudor Rickards ?

    While Tudor Rickards could be notable enough for inclusion his article reads like an advert for his business and methods and is not properly referenced. I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at it if you get chance. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Too long, too promotional. The subject himself may be notable, but it's not a very good article. Do you have some time to improve it? WP:EAR might be more helpful than this noticeboard for questions regarding the content of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for having a look. Ponty Pirate (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What are "rate limits"?

    Apparently, you are not affected by them, and I was just wondering what they were. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a way of limiting edit speeds for certain classes of editor to reduce the potential for damage, e.g. by massively numerous page moves in a short time period. Seems to work, too. --Rodhullandemu 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate behavior by admin

    Resolved

    I found the tone and substance of this edit very disturbing and saddening. It is an unwarranted interference in the normal give and take of editorial discussion, based on a gross misinterpretation of the language used in that discussion. In my many years editing Wikipedia I have not encountered this kind of heavy handed behavior, and it seems to me to be against the principles and ethics we should be following here. It raises for me the question of whether this person has an axe to grind in this particular discussion, and if so, why he is taking advantage of his admin tools to attempt to influence that discussion. Haiduc (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. *COUGH* HalfShadow 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin telling editors making attacks and being uncivil to stop or be blocked? The horror. Grsz11 →Review! 01:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Halfshadow hacked up the point I was trying to make quite nicely. --Tznkai (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't mind saying that was a hell of a lump to cough up. Anyone have a Halls? HalfShadow 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The normal give and take of editing" includes threats? And it's heavy-handed for an admin to tell people to stop threatening? Have I entered the Twilight Wiki-Zone?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, Tznkai was right to warn, no administrative intervention needed as long as Haiduc heeds the warning. MBisanz talk 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Libro0 Removing discussions from talk pages

    Resolved
     – No issues here, other than the sockpuppet who has been blocked. either way (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Libro0, who appears to have been inappropriately using talk pages of Talk:1950s Topps, Talk:1960s Topps, and Talk:1970s Topps as dumps for potential edits has removed warnings from the talk section of the aforementioned pages and removed the discussions contained therein [73] and [74]. I undid this vandalism of removal leaving the inappropriate use of the talk pages as it is so it can be properly dealt with. I hope this is the proper forum to report this. The Almighty Bob (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A. Archiving is perfectly acceptable on stale discussions. The discussions Libro0 was archiving are stale. B. The Almighty Bob appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Baseball Card Guy and has been blocked. either way (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bug in tracing trees of redirects

    Problems with User:Yachtsman1

    Resolved
     – 81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yachtsman1 keeps leaving warning messages on my talk page, and fails to WP:AGF. He has repeatedly reverted by good-faith efforts John McCain, and has left warning messages telling me to "Do not remove protection labels" when they are clearly incorrect (I'm editing as an IP, so the article is clearly not semi-protected). Can someone please at least remove the protection template on the article on my behalf so it won't get reverted by him? Thankyou. -81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note at Yachtsman's talk page; hopefully that will be the end of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252528612"