Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.43.89.136 (talk) at 00:00, 22 August 2009 (→Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries). 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)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Drama regarding Glenn Beck's WP article

    I found a Reddit submission pointing out what may or may not be crap-tons of bias on Glenn Beck's page here. Notably, the submitter talked about the page being 'controversy-free' due to one editor patrolling the page. I think someone ought to look into this, it seems there's a possibility of shit hitting the fan. PS. if this is on the wrong noticeboard, feel free to move it to another one - I posted it on this one because I thought it would get the most visibility here ZS 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crap, that's a mess. Following through some of the links there leads to a fairly clear indictment of at least one editor as an obvious POV Pusher, and the article's page history and talk page show that it's true, the editor is engaged in keeping the article free of anything which makes Beck look less than perfect. Admins definitely need to step in there, and it will probably require a topic ban to get eh process of repair started. ThuranX (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a note at WP:BLPN to discuss here, though probably should be the other way around.  Skomorokh  16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article continues to be a problem, from the editor discussed at the reddit link primarily. Seems there is absolutely nothing Beck could do wrong, and thus nothing 'wrong' can be put on the page. It's a huge POV shove. ThuranX (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that Beck recently declared that President Obama has a deep seated hatred of White people, and that he made this declaration on the network that hosts his show, an objective view would be that the article should have a section which details the controversies that trail from much of Beck's bloviating. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Beck article is free of mention of several incidents which have received widespread and significant coverage in reliable sources, because one editor says they are "newsworthy, but not noteworthy," such as calling President Obama racist, or crying on the air. The result is a puff-piece which is unencyclopedic in its omissions of controversy. Edison (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article continues to suffer from all out obstructionist refusal to incorporate any criticism from an editor with a serious non-encyclopedia-oriented reason to keep Beck's article free from criticism. ThuranX (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The obstruction continues, with the same editors refusing to budge on things. Including one controversial comment is undue weight, including a broad section on his history is prejudicial and unsupportable by sources, because any sources brought aren't WP:RS enough to pass his inspections. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are problems, but the situation seem to have improved somewhat, and it might be best to see how things proceed. I see one editor as the primary problem over there, which I concluded after reading the talk page and going through diffs for a few hours (it takes that long, unfortunately). I've written up some detailed evidence which I'll post here at WP:AN if things spin even slightly out of control again, the purpose of which would be to seek some sort of community intervention or sanction. But let's see how things go in the immediate future since there are a lot more eyes on the article now. What happened the past few weeks though has been incredibly problematic. I'll try to check in over there, but if that kind of thing flares up again feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinions/advice please

    Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, for a bit now and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. During the recent RfC on the issue Jimmy Wales stated something to the effect that
    Using administrator tools or participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. It was stated with other ideas as well but this one in particular, I feel, should be backed up in actual policy or otherwise clarified.

    1. Is this a policy if Jimmy simply states it is, if so do we have a policy that confirms that?
    2. Wouldn't other policies on admin behaviours simply trump this? That is, theoretically, there may be some example of an admin being paid by the foundation or some other "weird" example so just like most other issues we look if an admin is actually doing something wrong verses something we morally find objectionable?
    3. Is there a better way to phrase this or should it just be removed altogether?
    Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. We would have a policy which confirms that if an editor didn't hadn't removed it.[1]
    2. Every rule can be ignored if it aids the project. We don't need to make a separate IAR clause in every policy.
    3. The wording you have above seems succinct and clear.
    4. There is a concern that editors who may have engaged in paid editing are editing the policy without disclosing their conflict of interest.
    5. Only a few cases of cases clear paid editing have come to light. If anyone knows of administrative actions that have been made in the past, or AN/ANI threads about them, that information would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Will that it would be good to add the sentence, to remove doubt. I think from various discussions at the time the last instance of paid editing became prominent, it was clear that this is policy with extremely strong support from the community. If I were being supported by a foundation, to exercise admin functions in a neutral manner, I would presumably ask for a community OK here first, to make sure the project had their support. I think any prudent admin would, and it needn't be written down. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid Will is also an interested party and it may be helpful for them to step back a bit so we get some uninvolved opinions. Also that page is not a proposed policy but a summation of current status quo. DGG, I sort of agree but feel we do need to be more clear. Based on your comments it seems:

    Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden as evidenced by ___(what wording here is accurate?)___; any Wikipedia sanctioned use of admin tools for compensation should seek community approval at __(WP:AN?)___.

    Does this seem accurate and can you help fill in the blanks? Personally I'm not terribly bothered if it's policy or not but if it is we should be able to explain why it is. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really need "evidence" then just cite Jimbo's statement. Though he's renounced the use of the block button, there are other admins who would do it for him.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your opinion is painfully clear, if I had wanted to hear it yet again I could have simply posted on the talkpage; please take this opportunity to allow others who are not involved to offer some constructive help. If we insert Wales' statement then we also inject dissenting opinions from that same statement section dragging the whole spirit of it away. Let's not degrade progress shall we? Perhaps there is some actual policy that states anything Wales states as policy is such, perhaps there is no such thing. No reason to suppress other views on the matter, right? -- Banjeboi 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm eager to get constructive help on this matter. The editing of the policy page itself has involved lots of reverting and not much consensus. If the slow-speed edit war continues the matter will have to go to dispute resolution. This is obivously somewhat hypothetical pending someone getting caught taking pay for adminsitrative tasks or editing policy articles. But a clear statement from Wales, supported by admins, is strong evidence of a policy. I'll repeat my request above: if anyone has knowledge of any blocks, desysopings, or even just AN/ANI threads concerning actual instances of paid editing, that would help.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again that "clear" statement is only cleer against advocacy which is always prohibited - paid or not - and admins disagreed with Wales on aspects of the statement as well. Hence the request for uninvolved folks to offer opinions and advice, please vector your comments to the talkpage so others may offer some insight. If you seek past ANI/AN threads, etc then you can utilize the search function for those. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that there is a "slow-speed edit war" shows that there is no consensus on the matter. Some Wikipedians believe that editting for pay, no matter what the terms, should be grounds for banning without exception. Others, like me, believe that there are conditions where being paid to edit are permissible. I suggest that no policy be enforced until the dust has settled -- unless you enjoy making people angry for no good reason. -- llywrch (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are only a few editors active on that page, so I think the lack of consensus reflects the views of those individuals more than the community. There is a paradox here. Benjiboi is saying that there is no policy in this because it's never been enforced, and Llywrch is suggesting that we make no enforcement because there is no policy.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what I was saying is that because there is no consensus on the matter, the policy page will remain unstable. As for policy on the matter, there's nothing keeping anyone from acting on what they believe is abusive editting -- but speaking for myself I would recommend to anyone acting on this matter to proceed carefully because of the inevitable blow-back. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you have derailed this thread from getting a focussed answer. Second, you are misrepresenting what I'm stating, perhaps not on purpose. My concern is that Wales stated a paragraph of things and called it policy in an RfC, many folks disagreed with him and noted it was likely unenforcible and unneeded. My request was how do we accurately represent this with due weight. There seems to be less of a willingness to declare Wales' decrees as policy yet I see little to confirm how this can be presented. The RfC itself presented a split view of a divided community likely because editors such as yourself keep conflating paid editing as COI and advocacy when it clearly is not that simple. If you're unwilling to step back enough to allow uninvolved admins to comment in an area they are likely to be able to offer an opinion it's likely you'll drown out healthy discussion. -- Banjeboi 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread does not belong to any of us. Shall we both step back? We're both involved editors. There are concerns about "ownership" of the policy page, and there is also a consensus of involved editors that folks who are editing the page should disclose their paid editing, if any. We may need to address those issues before we can succeed in reaching consensus on the policy itself.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to note that somewhat recently there was an incident at the COI noticeboard regarding a paid editor, Gkerkvliet. See here for the original noticeboard report. The article was later deleted in a snowball discussion, and in that discussion the editor admitted to being paid. DGG stated in that discussion:

    I agree with you that if the content meets the standard, the manner of editing is irrelevant. I suppose under the principles of free enterprise that the paid editors who judge rightly will be the ones that prosper. But perhaps that's unfair since it is true that our judgements are not all that predictable or consistent.

    Other administrators took part in that deletion discussion, but nobody took offense at the fact that the editor was paid to edit the article, including non-administrators in the discussion. Personally I don't really see the harm in being paid to edit an article if the contributions are okay, and especially if the editor admits that they are paid to edit an article. -- Atamachat 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning to the point of Benjiboi's original question, I believe he meant to ask a question more in the form of "If Jimmy Wales makes a pronouncement on policy, is it policy?" And the answer to that is it depends. While his statements have a lot more weight than any other single Wikipedian, if enough Wikipedians object, it is not policy. (And IMHO, in this case, enough Wikipedians have objected so while it is a weighty opinion in itself his statement is not policy.) Policy pages, please remember, are simply a description of what policy is, not the policy itself. Consensus defines policy at all times -- even if we consent to the policy with silence or inactivity. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! That's kind of what I was looking for but not finding. As a follow-up do you think this bears mentioning on the summary-of-existing-practices page and if so what might be a NPOV of presenting this? -- Banjeboi 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well speaking for myself, I would mention it. My preference would be either a quotation or a link to the diff where he made that statement. (I believe this is it.) And if he has made any further comment on the matter, include at least a link to it too. The reason for this is quite simple: his opinions carry weight on Wikipedia. There are Wikipedians who, if he made the comment that everyone should only edit Wikipedia wearing a beanie cap with a propeller, would immediately buy one & wear it; then there are Wikipedians who react to that statement with countless arguments in opposition -- even if Wales later admitted he was just joking. But because not everyone posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing supported his statement, it is appropriate to include that as a factual observation. What the background section should contain is a factual review of all relevant discussions -- or at least links to them. (Reviewing that RfC, it is clear that the majority of commentators to that page did not support that statement: out of hundreds of people who left their opinions in that discussion, only 66 explicitly supported that statement. However, the people who opposed that statement, either in whole or part, were not in consensus over an alternative to it, nor seem to be in agreement beyond "paid editting in some cases is clearly wrong, & a user can be properly banned for it.") -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much appreciate your consideration on this ... I was specifically looking for the best way to present the Using administrator tools; I'd like to be clear and accurate. WP:Admin speaks of a gross violation of community trust; however can we infer that any admin action by a paid editor is by default a violation of trust. I wouldn't mind stating it's generally discouraged - assuming it is - and refer folks to WP:AN if they want clarification? Sorry to nitpick, we need to get it as close to right as possible. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to this thread on the talk page? My own, feeling about writing statements on policy is that when a subject is covered on another policy page, there is no need to discuss it on the page in question -- unless the intent is to implicitly create loopholes in the policy, or make it more restrictive. (Think of the rule against 3RR's, but there is a specific exception in the case of cleaning up vandalism; one policy -- 3RR -- is amended by another -- against vandalism.) We have rules about abuse of Admin privileges already; in the case of using/abusing them for pay, the only difference I can see that anyone would agree to is that the penalties should be more severe: for example, instead of just losing the Admin bit, the abuser loses it and gets blocked for a while. But that is just my opinion, based on general principals; if someone wanted to take action against another Wikipedian who abused his privileges for pay in a specific way, I would recommend the matter be first brought to WP:AN/I until a consensus developed about how to handle this. Sorry to ramble so much on this, but I'm hedging my opinions here because I don't want to discover that I'm the guy who created consensus & policy over this matter, when handling these matters needs input & buy-in from a large number of Wikipedians to make it work! -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it would be this thread. I'm not sure it even needs to be on the page but if it is it should be accurate. Right now we have
    I feel we may be erring here to assume any admin action is inherently a "gross violations of community trust". Arbcom was mentioned as stating such but a cite hasn't been forthcoming. I really don't care what the actual status quo is as long as we accurately reflect it even if we state - this is generally a bad idea and ask at ___ if unsure. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to think of an administrative action undertaken for pay that would be aceptable. Blocking or unblock? Certainly not. Deleting a page? I think most would consider that a problem. Viewing deleted pages? There are issues there, especially if the page had inappropriate content. Protecting or unprotecting pages? It doesn't seem likely anyone would pay for that, but if they did it would be a bad reason. Administrative actions shold be done in strict accordance with Wikipedia policies and for the sole purpose of improving the project and minimizing disruption. Benjiboi, which adminstrative actions do you think would be acceptable to do for pay?   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the types I can envision would more properly fall under WP:COI. Say an employee of a given company who is also an Admin (hey, Admins have bills to pay too!) deletes an article that otherwise meets CSD or BLP criteria; you just know that some disgruntled party is going argue that their primary motivation was due to favoring their employer. (And yes, this can happen: people forget about these things, don't have the time to pass the chore to another Admin, or consider a given example such a blatant violation of the rules they can safely ignore the rules.) My opinion about the entire question of doing Wikipedia work for pay is that many of the possible problems are covered by existing policies; if there are any not covered by existing policies or guidelines they need to be mentioned, discussed & addressed. -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's primarily a COI thing. Say I'm paid to write about Amalgamated Widgets, Inc. I come across an article titled "Deaths allegedly caused by Widgets" and I decide it looks like an attack page. Then deleting that page myself would represent a COI since my employer or client is that company. Now they may not have specifically ordered me to do so or given me a payment for it, but it'd be a COI in any case. The bigger problem here is that COI is a rather weak guideline and, when faced by the powerful forces that money and commerce can bring, it may not be sufficient to protect Wikipedia from turning into a public relations site.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting a page as part of a page move. That could be a non-controversial admin action that one might perform as part of a paid edit. Of course, I think that's a commonsense exception to a policy like this, and one that doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We've reached 3,000,000 articles!

    Congratulations, Wikipedia! The 3,000,000th article was just created, it is Beate Eriksen. It took a little over 8 years, but hey, we got it! (X! · talk)  · @212  ·  04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in case that one is deleted, Pray For Me (song) is the 3,000,001st, and Portuguese Fireplace is the 3,000,002nd. (X! · talk)  · @214  ·  04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I presented the user with a barnstar for the 3,000,000th article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the 3,000,001st article is a redirect. I sense a trend here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if the Admins on the English Wikipedia can do this or not, but someone should update the main portal at http://wikipedia.org/ to say "3,000,000+" articles. mnmazur  voicemail 

    I don't see what really there is to celebrate - we have a serious problem of quantity over quality. It's like saying "great, I've managed to poo in every room in the house". --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFPP

    Resolved
     – backlog cleared. Enigmamsg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I know it's not nearly as entertaining as admonishing editors on the noticeboards, but I would appreciate it if another administrator could take a crack at the backlog. I have been the only admin handling requests there recently. Aside from general fatigue on my part, I understand that people don't like it when one administrator "takes over" a page. Enigmamsg 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to help out, but am not terribly familiar with the area. Is there any guide to best practices (lengths of protection, when to block vs protect and so on) or prevailing conventions, along the lines of WP:FIELD around?  Skomorokh  17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not aware of any such essay. I learned from observing other administrators at work and how they applied the protection policy. If you have any specific questions, I could try to help there. Enigmamsg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, Enigmaman! You only get stuck with all the work because every time I go to check it out, you have already processed all the requests. If you did not work so blazingly fast, there would be something left for the rest of us to do! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All cleared now. Thanks, Enigmamsg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Enigma, I don't know if you have gotten crap from other admins for "taking over" the board, but as far as I'm concerned, if you are the only admin working the board, go right ahead and do 'em all. Tan | 39 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't personally, but I saw such a concern on a certain RfB. Maybe it isn't shared by many. Enigmamsg 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm thinking of the RfB you are thinking of, that was mainly because the user had been viewed as sort of a take-charge editor. He had written essays about the page, made tons of proposals, made hundreds of comments in discussions about it... Additionally, it's also Wikipedia's most drama-filled area, unlike RfPP. (X! · talk)  · @112  ·  01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. That allays my concerns. Yeah, it's the same RfB. Enigmamsg 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in the same boat for a while. When RFPP wears you out, just let it be for a bit until some other schmuck another kind admin shoulders the load for a bit. BTW I'll take care of the current crop of requests. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond (somewhat tangentially) to Skomorokh's question, it's not so much a guide as an admin's wry and bitter lament, but it might be worthwhile to read Angela's old essay m:The Wrong Version. It's been a long time since I protected anything, but being prepared in advance for the inevitable accusations is, I suspect, still a good idea. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and less fun (but perhaps more useful) is a page I'm surprised wasn't suggested--Wikipedia:Protection policy. I almost always reviewed it if I was protecting something, just to make sure I had my facts straight. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the policy page. I don't think that's what he was asking for. Enigmamsg 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiportal redirect needed

    Resolved
     – Article space should not be used for redirects to other namespaces. Seddσn 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to create a redirect at Wikiportal for Wikipedia:Portal. I was told it was protected, so I had to put in a request here.

    Since WikiProjects are called WikiProjects, and not Wikipedia:Projects, some people might get confused. In fact, everything from Wikipedia to Wiktionary has the Wiki/Wik in front of it. Wikimedia, wiki.. whatever. So most would assume that the portals would be called Wikiportals or WikiPortals. Thus redirects are necessary, to send people to the proper place. Dream Focus 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects from the mainspace to Wikipedia space are very rarely maintained. Did you mean Wikipedia:Wikiportal?  Skomorokh  00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintained? You just put it there and ignore it. Nothing to maintain at all. When I use the search to look for Wikiportal, I got no results. If someone wants to learn what a Wikiportal is, they should be able to enter it into the search thing, and find it right away. Dream Focus 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Also, no one wnats to know what a "wikiportal" is, since they are called "portals". Have a nice day! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone clicks Random article, we wouldn't really want them getting directed to a portal. They want a random article, not something in another namespace. As for Skomorokh's use of "maintain", see its definition in Wiktionary. It can mean "preserve" as well as "keep up". hmwitht 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, the motto of Hofstra University is Je maintiendrai which literally means "I will maintain" and more accurately translates as "I stand steadfast". So in this context, to "maintain" a redirect would be allowing it to stay. @harej 05:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Captcha help isn't helpful

    The instructions given above the captcha are (my emphasis): "To help protect against automated spam, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):". The box contains two words. However, you have to type them in as one word (i.e. without a space separating them). This is very non-obvious, and caused me to fail the captcha twice. Could an admin please expand either the text above the captcha or the help page to explain this? HenryAyoola (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's weird, I always entered it as 2 words... Did something change? (I can't seem to be able to trigger the captcha today, grrr). -- Luk talk 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked, it doesn't work. I'm unsure exactly how to change the wording (possibly switch to say "enter the word" instead?), but I'm fairly certain all the pages that would need to be changed are on this list. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Enter the words without any spaces", or "Enter the words, removing any spaces", maybe? I'm not sure what the exact format of the CAPTCHA is, though. Would that be any more clear? --☇Kateshortforbob talk☄ 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that should be fine. I'll go make the change on the pages now. Also, if you need to take a look at one of the CAPTCHAs, just log out and try to create an account, or add an external link to an article while logged out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. HenryAyoola (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Enter the letters" might be less verbose, which is probably good unless we want to make it very clear those are supposed to be words (which we might, I dunno). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Words" would probably be important; a human would be able to interpret an ambiguous letter based on what fits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zaxby

    This user is intentionally editing disruptively.[2][3] Why doesn't someone block the account?—SpaceFlight89 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See ANI thread. Deor (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3 day old thread...lack of admins willing to block? Does this belong to WP:AIV?—SpaceFlight89 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two examples could be regarded as not vandalism; someone defaces a WP page and Zaxby notes the edit as "nonsense" / an ip address is noted as being compromised, which Zaxby notes is not possible since anon addresses have no owner. Not saying that Zaxby may not be a problem, but those diffs do not show bad intentions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaxby's editing history shows they've been reverting people for frivolous reasons, creating hoax pages, commiting blatant vandalism and changing birth dates maliciously[4]. The editor knows how to undo edits (that's what they've been doing most of the time); I can't imagine a reason why they would tag Wikipedia:Introduction for deletion instead of reverting the bad edits, other than that they are just pissing around.—SpaceFlight89 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the block log: [5] - indef blocked on 15 Aug, but reversed by the same admin after realising there was no final warning. Certainly the old edits linked from here look problematic as a pattern, but unless there are recent problems (post 15 Aug - and I don't see any), he should get a chance. Rd232 talk 21:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I missed the link to an SPI issue - possible sock of User:Thechroniclesofratman. See WP:ANI#User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry. That needs looking into - can somebody file an SPI? Rd232 talk 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Post 15 Aug the user has stepped down from blatant vandalism to biting newcomers and reverting edits.
    • See [6], SridharRatnakumar (now NeuroBells123) had not made any personal attack, still the level 4 warning and harsh comments.
    • Reverting new users for not adding a "source", and sometimes the reverts are outright wrong[7][8]. Removal of valid AIV report with a wise*** edit summary [9] (note that the IP was a spambot, and was correctly reported as "a spambot or compromised account"). Its hard to assume good faith with edits such as this, specially when the user had been vandalizing earlier. —SpaceFlight89 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another bad revert (IP he reverted was correcting previous birthdate vandalism). Zaxby was mainly devoted to creating his hoax/fantasty user page (which I MfD'd here), with the occasional clueless or vandalistic edit, until other editors began to take notice of his activities; whereupon he began the current set of rapid problematic edits, apparently in an effort to persuade everyone that he's a good little Wikipedian. Can't he be stopped on WP:COMPETENCE grounds if nothing else? Deor (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another reversion of one of his incomprehensible edits today. He's also just deleted a bit of stern advice I left on his talk page, labeling it vandalism and dropping a {{uw-tempabuse3}} on my talk page. Deor (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Mak

    Resolved
     – article deleted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This "article" is likely a vanity/class mate fun article (about a non-notable person) and should probably be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged it for speedy deletion (A7). Deor (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the article. In the future, please use a speedy deletion tag or a proposed deletion tag to nominate articles for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD

    There are currently 201 pages at C:SD, so it's starting to get a bit backlogged. Image admins would be helpful. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Down to 35 pages, 122 images.  Skomorokh  16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Back up to 176. Fun. Enigmamsg 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikifan12345 mentorship

    This post is to inform the community that I have begun mentoring Wikifan12345 as was suggested in a recent ANI. Any community member is welcome to ask questions regarding this mentorship here or at my talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly does your mentorship imply? Consensus in that ANI thread was for a topic ban on Israel related articles, for the remainder of 2009. I'm sure Wikifan agrees to being mentored so as to avoid the topic ban, but I don't think there was any consensus for that. All I see on Wikifan's talk page is him trying to wikilaywer his way out of the topic ban, after plainly ignoring it for the past few weeks. If your mentorship implies seeing to it that he follows the ban, then that's fine, but that's clearly not what Wikifan intended.--Atlan (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mentorship implies that I am mentoring Wikifan, nothing more. I cannot speak to Wikifan's intentions in entering mentorship. There was a misunderstanding with regards to the topic ban, since the discussion was automatically archived before being reviewed and closed. I am counseling Wikifan to follow the community's consensus, but I am unable to enforce the topic ban as I am not an admin. I hope that I've adequately addressed your concerns; if not, please let me know. --Gimme danger (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me then, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully the mentorship can help this user learn to work better with others, but his excuses that there was a misunderstanding or that the discussion "went stale" are without merit. The topic ban garnered consensus, and it was officially logged at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans. If it is being broken...and it certainly appears that it is...then is it now a matter for WP:AE to deal with? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was logged less than a day ago. Even though I find the "discussion going stale before resolution" excuse quite unconvincing, let's enforce the ban from that moment on.--Atlan (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries

    If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

    What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Wikipedia should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

    London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

    Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of one vandal who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

    Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which are still blocked. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. John Reaves 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. Thatcher 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and KnightLago had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request backlog

    Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests needs to be cleared out by a few admins. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed header of Special:NewFiles

    Per recent addition to commons:Special:NewFiles, I decided to make similar addition here. Though as the link added links to a tool I've created, I notify you here so you know. The relevant interface message is MediaWiki:Newimages-summary →AzaToth 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "A Database Error Occurred". :) Amalthea 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Toolserver is at the moment doing hardware maintenance on just the s1 db replica, so sadly en-wp is not available this minute :( (sadly there isn't an machine-readable way to indicate server-availability on toolserver yet. →AzaToth 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Username blocks

    Can anyone explain as to how the following blocks by Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) violates username policy?

    I can list further examples, but I am not too pleased that little or incorrect rationale is being given to these surmised username violations. seicer | talk | contribs 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are all a little inexplicable. From a read through the talk page of the last one, it looks like there could have been a (better) discussion about the concerns surrounding the name and, if that was the genuine concern, a softblock could have been applied (as the user even suggested). It rather seems that other issues were the real problem and the name issue was what was used as an indef justification which seems like an endrun around dealing with the original issues that the user had. The original block for copyright issues at the top of the talkpage seems on the surface to be a little hasty (unless there are other facts that aren't obvious) and it looks like the situation then got out of control without any real cool down/explanation time. As far as the others go, it appears that the vandalism only account reasoning was used prematurely without an adequate pattern to permit that judgement. None of those names suggest to me a user with no intent to contribute constructively without the associated contributions history to back that assessment. Mfield (Oi!) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take more than one edit to make a judgement on a vandalism only account. Really. Brandon (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper protocol does not parse judgment on one edit, per blocking policy, and then assign a false block summary based upon a vague descriptor. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I disagree, I am sure there are plenty of editors who's first edit was not constructive. I am not questioning the application of a block, but to block indefinitely, as a vandalism-only account, seems like not using that specific justification as it may be intended. Sure, if a user only has one edit and that edit is vandalism then their account is by definition a vandalism-only account. But a 24 hour block would stop the immediate problem and might well prompt them not to continue vandalizing. A second, constructive, edit would then make their account not vandalism-only. I feel it is rushing to judgement to make a block after only one edit, especially if the vandalism does not appear to be overly malicious or could be interpreted as initial messing about from a newbie. How do you make a certain enough assessment on the character of a person you have never met based on one edit without knowing anything else about the person? I am a fairly regular admin patrolling UAA and I wouldn't feel comfortable hardblocking a username as displaying an intent not to contribute constructively with that little track record to go on, nor would i feel comfortable declaring an account to be vandalism only with the same short record to go on. Mfield (Oi!) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was an admin, I didn't patrol UAA but I blocked vandalism-only accounts fairly regularly. I did not block accounts whose edits consisted of one edit, or two edits, and make broad assumptions that it was therefore a username block. seicer | talk | contribs 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking those accounts because of their user names is just plain stupid. --DroolingVegetable (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, your username is way more offensive than any of the above. Mfield (Oi!) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you discuss this with Nja247 before bringing it here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general note, not on these specifically, I have always found the username blocks have been WAY over applied here. Unless the name itself is GROSSLY DISRUPTIVE, the situation could probably be better handled by asking the account holder to file for a WP:CHU instead of blocking outright. Don't even get me started on the overextension of the "spamusername" block rationale... (AFTER EC with WTWAG). Yeah, I also second WTWAG. Has there been any attempt to get your questions answered privately by Nja247 before dragging him before the WP:AN tribunal? --Jayron32 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On that note I was trying to make general comments and points on the blocks in question myself, rather than pass judgement on the actions of the admin in question. Mfield (Oi!) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it is a larger issue that should merit further questioning and investigation throughout. I've noted other dubious UAA blocks in recent weeks - blocks that should be overturned. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Report Members

    Resolved
     – IP warned level 1 Mfield (Oi!) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    124.217.76.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted an entire section off of BIOS. Please respond to me on my talk page when someone reads this message, and then take appropriate action. Btilm (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Without any prior history the proper course of action is to issue them a level 1 warning which you can do. I have done it for you this time. If the action is repeated then the warning can be escalated. Once adequate warnings have been issued up to a final warning the IP could be reported to WP:AIV but until that point, no further admin action is necessary. Mfield (Oi!) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    General improvements to the header at WP:SPI

    Administrators,

    I've taken the liberty to try to make some improvements at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header, where all the instructions and basic SPI guidelines are displayed. A working copy of the page with my proposed revisions can be found in my sandbox. I have also opened up a section for discussion at WT:SPI if anybody wants to discuss any further changes or make other suggestions. Anyone is also free to make any edits they seem fit on my sandbox page if desired. Regards, MuZemike 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=309341984"