Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Cold fusion

See also WP:COIN. The long and the short of it is, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written an article in a fringe journal, New Energy Times, openly admitting that he has been pursuing a years-long agenda to skew the article Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to be more favourable to the fringe views proomoted by that journal, [1] and especially [2]. Example:

"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers".

Note:

Few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate.

Per WP:NPOV, if "few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum" then Wikipedia should be right there with them. Not working to fix that problem, as Pierre Carbonelle and Ron Marshall have tried. And try they most assuredly have.

This is a wholly inappropriate use of Wikipedia. We are not here to resurrect the reputations of pariah fields, we are here to document them. Pcarbonn and other members of this fringe group have been the major editors of that article for a very long time, and caused it to be demoted from FA status due to POV-pushing.

I have reverted, again, to the FA version. This is reasonably free of the subtle and destructive bias of this group. A friend of mine who was a grad student in one of the labs in which the original Fleischmann-Pons experiments were conducted, and who is still active in academia as a full professor in bio and electrochemistry at an English university, read through the FA version and said he considers it a fair representation of the field. I trust his judgment in a way I don't trust that of Pcarbonn.

This incident is a perfect example of a problem I have pointed out many times: those who seek to promote a fringe view are attracted to Wikipedia by its profile. It is massively more important to them to get their POV reflected on Wikipedia, tan it is to almost any Wikipedian to stop them. Long-term polite POV-pushing, driving off all those who seek to maintain neutrality, has in this case resulted in an article with which the POV-pushers are very happy, reflecting as it does their fringe view.

As I say, I reverted to the FA version which has the benefit of not having been subject to years of insidious POV-pushing. I also suggest an indefinitet topic ban for Pcarbonn. I do not recall his ever having declared his conflict of interest during the protracted mediation in which he was the main, almost sole at times, participant. He has abused the project, abused the good faith of Seicer and others, and committed a gross violation of WP:NPOV in the service of an off-wiki agenda, using Wikipedia to change reality rather than document it. Enough. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Before I consider your suggestion further, could you provide the link between the author of that piece and the account in question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Oops, confusion - the link you provided above goes to the wrong article. The user links to the right one from his user page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that his statement "I have won the battle for cold fusion) (note where "the battle" links to" is completely inappropriate and is about the mostl explicit, if not the most severe, violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND I've ever seen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear here, I do not care at all - not even slightly - if they are right or wrong about the field itself, the problem here is the egregious use of Wikipedia to try to shape rather than reflect public opinion. Public opinion, as reflected in journals such as Physics Today, is that cold fusion is essentially a joke, and where it is not a joke, the Pons-Fleishmann debacle is sufficiently powerful in the memory that people are very wary indeed of going anywhere near it. Again, Wikipedia is not here to fix problems in the real world, and that is what these guys have been trying to do.

More to the point, he "won" by virtue of persistence, because (as usual in such cases) it really matters to him to win, whereas most of the rest have other "battles" to fight and other articles to police. This is a perennial and growing problem. The ones with the itme, energy and determination are the ones with an agenda to promote. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell are you getting this from? I read both articles he wrote, and I see no issue here. Someone believes something different from you, so you want to ban them from editing? -- Ned Scott 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, why are you bring up a content dispute on AN? This editor believes that they are acting in good faith, and that they are upholding NPOV and are using reliable sources. They might be right or wrong in that belief, but they haven't broken any rule or behavioral guideline. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because (if you read it) I am suggesting a sanction. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG this editor believes that X is accurate, has nothing to personally gain by X being true, but honestly believes it is backed by reliable sources. Now that son of a bitch has the balls to write about it in a journal of like-minded peers. How dare he! -- Ned Scott 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have a classic case of a single purpose account here. I can't find more than 10 edits by Pcarbonn to any article other than cold fusion, and in the most recent version, I don't see the word pseudoscience at all (last I heard about cold fusion it was in a class dedicated to the identification and investigation of pseudoscientific theories [although Category:Fringe physics is in Category:Pseudophysics which is in Category:Pseudoscience]). And Pcarbonn's writings at New Energy Times, the second of which contains the statement "I hope that the revised Wikipedia article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." Certainly, Pcarbonn has been involved in this revision process, which he holds his own views on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not found more than 10 edits by me to any article other than cold fusion, you have not looked. No editors have been able to find a post-2000 sources saying that cold fusion is pseudoscience, and a recent RfC on the subject concluded that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. This is a content dispute, nothing else. I have no financial interest, in one form or another, related to cold fusion. I have followed all wikipedia rules, and even have written for the enemy. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goal of "presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science" is fully supported by the most notable, reliable review of the field: the 2004 DOE panel. Anybody who wants to present cold fusion as pseudoscience has a hidden agenda (one editor presented himself as the representative of the "average scientific lab" and defended their view, at least as he saw it). The only thing is, this agenda is not supported by reliable secondary sources of the same level as the 2004 DOE (see parity of sources). All this is explained in the paper I wrote for NET, if anybody would care to read it. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because fringe topics are not published, generally, in main stream scientific journals. This is something I also learned from the course that I took. And I went back through about 2000 of your contributions, and out of the articles, most were related to cold fusion, if not cold fusion itself. A simple Google search shows the differing ideas. A search of the last 20 years of articles in the Journal of Physics gives 24 papers (I did not read them, but they were few). And, also, you mention "the enemy." There shouldn't be talk of enemy and ally on Wikipedia unless it's an article about a war, and the RFC. I'm not saying someone's right and someone is wrong here, but a bulk of your contributions (and by bulk I mean well over 90%) are dedicated to cold fusion and related pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing wrong with that.. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is wrong that this article went from featured to just "good" because of its current content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted in 2004 and demoted in 2006, and there were multiple issues cited at its delisting. It's unfortunate that the article lost it's FA status, but that's a content dispute. Pcarbonn doesn't have a COI here, he just believes there's some truth to cold fusion. It doesn't appear that he's ever tried to hide that fact. Suddenly Guy finds out he wrote an article about the situation and proposes that Pcarbonn be banned from the article. WTF? -- Ned Scott 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you say "fringe topics are not published, generally, in main stream scientific journals". This statement applies to pseudoscience, not to fringe science topics. They have been several papers on cold fusion in peer-reviewed scientific journals, another proof that it is not pseudoscience. If I'm not mistaken, the google search you propose only provides self-published, unreliable sources, and certainly not at the level of reliability and notability as the 2004 DOE review.

Here is what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." That is what I have defended, only that, and I'll continue to do it. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion appeared well and fairly documented last time I read it, probably thanks largely to Pcarbonn.[3] Now when I glance at it I see a lead with zero citations and zero footnotes.[4] Jzg has blanked the page. See blanking on the types of vandalism. Blanking pages wholesale is not the way Wikipedia works. Point out citations that you find questionable, discuss, proceed with dispute resolution if necessary. Don't come here. Don't edit war. Don't blank verifiable research including evidence from the Osaka University, Dep't of Navy, Indian gov't, DOE review, and others.

Some of the concerns raised by Ryulong are difficult to understand "Pcarbonn has been involved in this revision process, which he holds his own views on" -- we all hold our own views on subjects. The people with the strongest views are generally attracted to editing the articles. I fail to see the relevance, and I think there's a major conflation of vested interest with conflict of interest here. Also, the POV pusher thing goes both ways. All of the evidence in favor of cold fusion clearly should be documented: If you can point to specific areas where Pcarbonn has pushed highly questionable references and content, you should be addressing those on the article page, or going to dispute resolution. This sounds like a whole lotta noise and rhetoric. JzG's blanking the page should be reverted as vandalism, if he continues he should be blocked. Since this isn't the place to be discussing the article content, I propose we close this, and it can be continued on the article itself, as it should be -- although perhaps it should be continued, since there's some highly questionable behavior from JzG here.

The FA article is categorized as pseudoscience. There was recently a RfC which overwhelmingly concluded that although cold fusion is fringe science, it is not pseudoscience. So there's no consensus for these actions.

If JzG wishes to proceed with blanking the page, he should try a RfC first. A lot of people have done a lot of work on the page that existed, and most seemed to think it was pretty good. II | (t - c) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to say that transitioning Wikipedia's article from describing cold fusion in terms of 'fringe pseudo-science' to a 'scientific controversy' was a laborious and sometimes heated process? If so, then I can see no 'rule violation' in saying so. Wikipedia is not SUPPOSED to be a battlefield. But, can anyone really say that Cold Fusion wasn't? In 1989 (first DOE review) it would have been perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to describe cold fusion as fringe pseudo-science, but that became less and less true over time and by 2004 about a third of the second DOE review members were saying that they found the evidence for cold fusion convincing or compelling. In 1989 US government funding into cold fusion research was barred because the DOE thought there was nothing to it, but since 2004 it has been allowed... because the DOE now isn't sure whether there is anything to it. Kudos to Pcarbonn (and doubtless others) on successfully updating the encyclopedia to be in line with the current status of the issue. Five years from now we may be rewriting the article again to explain what was really behind the anomalies which caused researchers to think that cold fusion was happening... or the details of how cold fusion was confirmed. Surprise, NPOV isn't a static unchanging animal... and sometimes getting people to accept that things have changed IS a 'battle'. --CBD 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy of NPOV is a very static sexy animal. However an actual neutral point of view can change day by day (MINUTE BY MINUTE!) on specific topics. And everyone who saw the Saint stop the evil Russians knows Cold Fusion is real. Beam 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 version (with 64k of material -- JzG cut it down to a 2004 version with 24k material) doesn't even describe it as a scientific controversy per se. It's pretty neutral; the phenomenon is described more like a strange anomalous curiosity which mainstream physics mainly ignores and can't explain. It's sort of an example of incommensurability between research programmes a la Lakatos – not that "new physics" is really scientific in my mind, but as a layman I have no way of knowing. There seems to be more interest it in abroad, but since we're English, we can't really discuss that as well, only mention it. Of course where there is interest should be mentioned, as it is in the well-referenced version, which is rather careful. In some cases it language could be shifted; for example, in the criticism section on lack of reproducibility, it might be best to start with the 2004 DOE panel's claim that the effects are not replicable rather than the the researchers' claim that there is replicability "at will". Then again, considering the 2 recent positive reviews and reports in peer-reviewed journals, maybe not. What is surprising is that there are very few recent negative reviews in the article. This might be because many of the anti-fringe POV pushers prefer to blank than to do research. If JzG gave the thing a careful read and attempted some research of his own, he could fix these problems; instead he seems intent upon pushing a futile edit-war with no talk page support to make some kind of emotional point. His actions are amazingly irrational and starkly in violation of Wikipedia policies for dispute resolution; surely he realizes that 40k of content worked up over 4 years are not going to disappear on his personal whim. II | (t - c) 11:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 version is perfect if you are a True Believer, less so if you subscribe to the majority POV. When you say anti-fringe POV pushers, do you mean WP:NPOV-pushers like me and SA, or do you mean those who oppose Pcarbonn and the other fringe POV-pushers? I don't do WP:OR, myself, but thanks for the suggestion.Guy (Help!) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, what the 2004 DoE review said, and what those who supported cold fusion in some respect said, was that there is some unknown effect but that without getting the basic science right it is pointless to keep repeating the same sometimes-reproducible experiments. The cold fusion mob like to interpret this as "DoE supports cold fusion research", but actually it's "DoE says go away and do the basic science". They have had 18 years to do it, and have not yet come up with a credible mechanism. The scientific community is still waiting, and the general reaction to cold fusion in the scientific community is highly sceptical, which is one reason the cold fusion mob did a Windscale and changed the name to LENR. But the problem remains: those who have the enrgy and determination, are those with a vested interest in the fringe view. That was the problem during dispute resolution, it is the problem now. The New Energy Times mob have successfully rewritten Wikipedia to reflect the world as they wish it to e, but the world is not as they wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy has related this to a genuine problem, of persistent and polite pov pushing producing misleading articles. This version (not Guy's preferred older version) includes references which are difficult to substantiate, but appear to indicate something which is clearly fringe science. Whether it's pseudoscience is more debatable, and to that extent the older lead appears doubtful to me, but at present the lead section bends over backwards to give credibility to what seems to be a minor unexplained anomaly which is only just detectable. Its proponents still seem to be making wild claims about the potential of this unexplained process for future energy generation. The request for mediation resulted in a draft being introduced for further discussion, and evidently the recent version was considerably watered down from that draft to give more credence to "cold fusion". Not easy to overcome such persistence, unless editors show equal persistence in giving due weight to mainstream views. . . dave souza, talk 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. For example, the lead describes two literature searches by interested parties in minor journals, thus placing them on a par with Fleischmann and Pons' paper in Nature, one of the highest impact journals in the world, and leading to one of the largest scientific controversies of my lifetime. Sure, Pcarbonn sincerely believes that the tiny group of pro-CF researchers are onto something. Problem is, most of the mainstream not only doesn't believe this, they don't even know they exist. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with the editing of this article. It seems to me that whether the material inserted by the POV pusher is correct (or rather, plausible) is beside the point. Rather, we have a startling admission of bad faith in editing and unclean hands. It seems to me that in the face of that, the proper steps are:

1. Revert the article to the pre-bad-faith version (the FAC version seems like a good starting point.)
2. Begin dispute resolution at whatever level is appropriate (RFC, RFArb), and optionally...
3. Discuss in this space whether a community (or topic) ban is appropriate

Dithering over the details of the edits is appropriate for a content dispute. This is not a content dispute. This is an editor who has figured out how to game our system, who has done so to great effect, and who is now encouraging others to do so. This is an extraordinary situation, and in my opinion, calls for extraordinary remedies. Nandesuka (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nandesuka. This is not about the topic being fringe science or not, this is about violations of our conflict of interest standards and about treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I could well imagine that a topic ban might be an appropriate remedy. Sandstein 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A revert to the accepted mediation version, which includes most of the content from the Featured Article, is what I suggested on Guy's talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: "accepted mediation version" here equates to Pcarbonn's preferred version, since he was responsible for about 90% of the lobbying in the mediation - I was rather busy burying my father at the time, and Pcarbonn somehow forgot to mention that he was setting out to use Wikipedia to blaze the trail in rehabilitating the reputation of this fringe field. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. You'll find if you look at that mediation that virtually everybody supporting the more sympathetic view which prevailed, is a single-purpose or agenda account, and they are the ones with all the determination because it is vitally important to them to get their way. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments should be made cold fusion talk page. This is a bad faith, biased rant by JzG, who apparently hasn't even read the article, nor paid any attention to the thorough discussions ongoing on the article. The article has been constructed collaboratively with several editors, including skeptics. ScienceApologist and several others are heavily involved there balancing things; JzG would be welcome, I'm sure. Pcarbonn has a vested interest -- this is not the same thing as a conflict of interest, which implies financial incentives. Sure, Pcarbonn has an opinion, and feels that the article on cold fusion is now balanced. That doesn't necessarily mean it is balanced, but that is something that JzG should try to fix as an editor, and should be. If one reads BATTLEGROUND, one can see that he is working directly against its principles. Battle ground says this:

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion.

Rather than attempting to go to the talk page and gather consensus, JzG suddenly reverts an article 4 years back. That's battleground behavior, pure and simple. Find problem areas, bring them up, discuss, use dispute resolution if necessary. II | (t - c) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of article content, the only question that needs to be asked when someone has reverted a page to a prior version is, "Is the restored version better than the more recent version?" The act of reverting, particularly if a revert is back to a FA version, is not necessarily "battleground behavior." I haven't looked into this particular debate. Antelan 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only question is not whether one person (in this case, JzG) thinks it is better, but whether the editors think it is better. JzG went straight in and took it back to 2004, with not a word to the talk page seeing what all the actual article contributors have to say. He reverted again after an anon IP contributor to the article (who I believe is a skeptic of cold fusion) reverted him. That behavior is undeniably shocking, really, and you should really look into things before you comment. The page has seen heavy attention lately. A 2004 FA wouldn't even be a GA today, in many cases, and I think this is one of them. 24k vs. 64k; the "FA" doesn't even have footnotes or parenthetical references. JzG is not our knight of science. This is not a battleground where he fights demons of fringe. He needs to learn to play within the rules and discuss like normal editors. II | (t - c) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to 2004, FA or not, seems retarded. Since 2004 the way mainstream scientists and the US Govt (among others) look at Cold Fusion has changed. The whole idea of Cold Fusion has evolved in 4 years. To revert to 2004 instead of working together in 2008 is lazy, and imAWESOMEo irresponsible. Beam 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Actually, if anything the 'featured article' version seems markedly more friendly to a 'cold fusion is real' viewpoint than the version before the revert. In several places the version from four years ago seems to state cold fusion as an outright fact, barely pausing to note that some dispute it. Also note that I call it a 'featured article' version because it is nowhere remotely close to current FA standards... featured articles were a very different thing four years ago. --CBD 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what has happened since 2004: the American Chemical Society hosted a 2007 conference on cold fusion,[5] and plans to (or already has) published a book in 2008[6], and the American Physical Society hosted a conference. The Indian gov't announced that the science appears promising and wants to look into it, an Indian version of Nature ran an article; and a couple people at Osaka University claimed that they have working cold fusion reactor.[7]. I've never edited the article and only read it first a couple weeks ago, so there may be other things, but these are all reliably published. I'm guessing that JzG just didn't know about these things; if he did, then it seems even more ridiculous. That's why it is best to research and think before acting... II | (t - c) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave the content issue aside for now, though I have an opinion about it. The basic issue is simple: we have an editor whose self-admitted purpose is to use Wikipedia to raise the profile and credibility of a fringe/disputed idea. That editor has used mediation as a "battle" in which he successfully wore down opposition, and has gone so far as to brag about it in a niche publication devoted to cold fusion.

This editor should not be editing Wikipedia articles on cold fusion. That this is even controversial is disheartening. We have here a very basic and well-documented abuse of Wikipedia to promote an off-wiki agenda. I am in full agreement with Sandstein: Pcarbonn should be restricted from editing cold fusion and related articles indefinitely, though at this point I would suggest allowing him to continue contributing to the talk pages. If his proposed changes actually improve the article, they will find support from others. Is there significant opposition to a topic ban from articlespace on cold fusion - based not on which version is "better" but on an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an agenda? MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that dragging an on-Wiki dispute off-Wiki is never a good idea, I think we should primarily consider PCarbonn's on-Wiki contributions to the page and behavior before we start boiling up the tar. PCarbonn has worked diligently and in good faith. I see no reason based on his record to support a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki agenda? One's agendas cannot be separated into on-wiki and off-wiki categories. You have an agenda to write good medical articles reflecting mainstream science. Pierre has an agenda to make sure that the recent scientific literature on cold fusion is presented. If you look at the purported evidence, he states he believed that his work was necessary and neutral, and that he was aided by the publishing of articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. No evidence has been presented that he wore down the opposition into accepting information that doesn't belong on the page. The cold fusion article right now looks fine, with plenty of strong references and a neutral tone. Some less strong references are probably in there, but they can be removed, and they constitute the minority from what I've seen. II | (t - c) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on - one of those "agendas" is in keeping with Wikipedia's goals, mission, and policies, and one isn't. The cold fusion page doesn't look fine - it was just protected due to edit-warring over a particularly iffy conclusion to the lead. If someone goes off-wiki to say, "Hey, I won the battle to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of our pet theory!" and then comes on-wiki to edit-war in furtherance of that agenda, then I don't see the point of an artificial distinction - the bottom line is amply clear. I feel strongly that either 1RR or restriction to the talk page are appropriate here. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Pierre didn't add that bit to the lead, and is fine with removing it. From what I've seen he appears to be quite cooperative. He comes with a bit of a bias, yes, but so does everyone. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for JzG, who appears less inclined towards discussion and consensus and much more inflammatory. II | (t - c) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, because Pierre is here for the long haul to get his POV reflected in Wikipedia as part of changing the way the world views the subject, whereas I'm here to keep the project neutral and have many, many articles on my watchlist - plus I'm travelling right now (in the Swiss business lounge in Zurich airport, to be exact). Guy (Help!) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not bothered by this report. Previous efforts to influence Wikipedia have resorted to sockpuppetry, concerted meat-puppet campaigns, canvassing, and the like. This effort instead used reasoned arguments in a mediation. The mediation by a good and fair editor here, resulted in some changes to the article, and they regard the changes as having the article "present[ing] the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science." This is a reasonable goal, and in keeping with Wikipedia policy. They consider the main way they did it was by adding additional references. Ditto. I wish all people with an agenda did as reasonably. (FWIW,my personal opinion is that the initial reports were in fact an example of pathological science, and that subsequent work now leaves open the possibility that something might be real. It is a somewhat more plausible sort of thing than ufos.) DGG (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explicitly not endorsing Guy's, or anyone's, preferred version. The new one may well be better, and anyway that's not an AN/I question. I'm not even arguing with the quote snippet you've selected, about describing it as a "controversy" rather than "pathologic science" - I think that's appropriate. I'm concerned by the other quote snippets above, indicating that a group of people from this relatively small community are using Wikipedia to raise the profile of their pet idea, and that they view their participation as a "battle" to gain "recognition" for "paradigm-shifting scientists like Pons and Fleischmann." I'm not especially convinced by the argument that OTHERCOORDINATEDAGENDAPUSHINGEXISTS; sure, they're not "as bad" as some of the chronic Lyme disease groups, or the AIDS denialists, or the unaccredited-correspondence-school brigade, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. And I don't see the problem with 1RR - if these changes have support from editors without an axe to grind, then they'll be incorporated. If it's only the cold-fusion community that want to see them incorporated, then it won't happen. That seems right to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mast, please, point to something Pierre has done on-wiki that deserves censure. If we handed out topic bans to every editor who brings an agenda there'd be no one left to enforce them. Ronnotel (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. If we topic-banned everyone who came here solely to leverage this site's visibility and promote a topic "unjustly ignored" by mainstream academia, we'd be just fine. In fact, this place might get closer to its stated goal of being a serious, respected reference work.

Again, I see the on-wiki distinction as artificial in this case. This editor has written that his participation here is driven by the desire to promote acceptance of cold fusion, and thus favorably influence journalistic and academic coverage of it. In light of that expressed agenda, his on-wiki actions, summarized in his own words as "I have won the battle for cold fusion", seem problematic. I have a really hard time seeing what we lose by 1RR here. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a really hard time seeing where 1RR is justified here. Given, for instance, that Pcarbonn reverted JzG exactly... once. It was everyone else, including a cold fusion skeptic, that was reverting JzG's 'blast from the past' restoration of the page to 2004. --CBD 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Would it change your opinion to look at the page history in a little more depth? Because Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has reverted at least 4 times in the past 20 hours ([8], [9], [10], [11]). That's edit-warring, and it would be blockworthy were the page not already protected. To be fair, I think he later self-reverted one of these when he read the source he was citing and found that it did not support his claims. Nonetheless, it seems through-the-looking-glass bizarre to argue that he's only reverted once, or that edit-warring is not an issue, or that 1RR is somehow out of left field here. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are used to prevent disruptive behavior that is seriously debilitating. Many alternate forms of behavior modification are before this extreme step. Are you proposing that we blow through all of these (warnings, escalating blocks, mentoring, RfCs) and opt for a topic ban as first response? Ronnotel (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm proposing 1RR, which is good practice for everyone, and particularly useful in forcing an advocate to convince others that his edits are beneficial rather than edit-warring to directly advance his agenda. I find it's much more useful than escalating blocks and mentorship, and I'm not aware of a mandate that these other approaches fail before we institute 1RR. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN is not a step in dispute resolution

off topic Discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

JzG, you should know better than this. WP:AN is no one's personal tool to get their own way in a content dispute, if there's a problem you take it through regular dispute resolution. This is exactly the kind of behaviour you said you'd moderate, but you're back to old tricks again it seems. Please do not cause this kind of disruption again. --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an appropriate question to bring to WP:AN to solicit administrative opinions. Please don't engage in baiting. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect MastCell, it is explicitly not. I suggest you scroll to the top of this page, and read the part where it says "What these pages are not". --Barberio (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept that I am familiar with the workings of this page. I'm hardly the only uninvolved admin to feel this is a reasonable issue to address here; see above. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you may well be familiar with the workings of this page, you are contradicting the clear statement at the top of this page about what should not be posted here. This is a content dispute that should have gone through dispute resolution. It should not have been posted here. End of discussion. As an admin, you should not be undermining the dispute resolution process. --Barberio (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, Barberio. We don't have to adhere to the letter of the law 100% of the time. Yes, you can comment that maybe next time they should take it somewhere else, but being rigid, bossy and bureaucratic isn't going to help anyone. Tan ǀ 39 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute resolution is not something to be dictated by what ever group of administrators are reading WP:AN or WP:ANI at the time.--Barberio (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit, MastCell, he's beat you here. He said the same thing three times in a row, and everyone knows if you say something three times in a row it becomes true. Plus, he was the first one clever enough to say "end of discussion". Much like saying "shotgun!", or "Mornington Crescent", the first one to say it wins. --barneca (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Been meaning to ask you, Barneca, how's that Jimboship thing working out for you, anyway? Ronnotel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a "special say" in dispute resolution? All we have are third opinions, uninvolved opinions. Yes, we have WP:3O and WP:DR, but who is there? Just a different group of... uninvolved opinions. Is the dispute being addressed in a manner that furthers Wikipedia? Are you helping that along? Geez. Grumpy old man in every crowd - "get off my lawn!" Tan ǀ 39 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state that I am very disappointed in the amount of administrators who seem to express the opinion that the Dispute Resolution Process should only be followed when they want it to be, and can be short cut whenever they want.

It can't, being a Wikipedia administrator didn't grant you the power to skip over Dispute Resolution. Wikipedia does not need disruptive administrators undermining the Dispute Resolution Process. If you think "Dispute Resolution" is a bunch of bureaucratic rules you can ignore at whim, maybe you need to reconsider why you're here? --Barberio (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If I am having a dispute, I am not required to go to Dispute Resolution. I have many, many options at my disposal here for resolution of my problem. And now you say I need to reconsider why I am here? What the fuck does that have to do with this? Tan ǀ 39 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different editors & admins work out the issues that arise in different ways. Some are painstaking in one approach, others in others. There are no hard and fast rules, nor should there be. We should all look at any situation, assess it, and then decide the appropriate course of action. Unless I'm missing the diktat somewhere that says "Go directly to DR". We should all be flexible, as each problem or issue is unlike any other. And, while I'm on, saying "maybe you need to reconsider why you're here?" is frankly appalling and unnecessary. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no secret of my opinion that administrators who undermine Dispute Resolution, and administrators who reject civility, should not be administrators on this project. I'm not going to change that opinion because it might hurt the feelings of the administrators who reject civility or undermine Dispute Resolution. --Barberio (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which is after all policy. WP:AN is only for urgent cases of disruption, not content issues that can be resolved by any of the other methods outlined. Again, every editor including administrators is expected to follow Dispute Resolution.

While you may have 'many options', only some options are considered acceptable and advisable methods to resolve the issue on Wikipedia. And all of them are listed in Dispute Resolution, so if you're taking an option outside of Dispute Resolution you're doing something that might not be in the best interests of the wiki.

Additionally, both editors and administrators are also expected to use civil language. --Barberio (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Tan ǀ 39 23:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Barberio on his/her very last point. Yes, we should be civil. As it is profoundly offensive and uncivil to say "maybe you need to reconsider why you're here?", so we can assume that your last remark is an apology for the one above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the best I can do is a non-apology apology, in that I'm very sorry if I offended anyone by expecting administrators to abide by the Dispute Resolution process. --Barberio (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once you asked me to "reconsider why I was here", you lost all respect. Not that you care, I would guess. Give me a break - like this bloated entity needs yet more instruction creep, more rules and regulations, more bureaucracy. I have no tolerance for this, or for its proponents. Why am I here? Why are you here, to bring the hammer down on people who take disputes to WP:AN rather than WP:DR. Pfft. Do something constructive. Tan ǀ 39 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution is instruction creep and bureaucracy, and you will not tolerate it? --Barberio (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, did you read that somewhere? I'm saying that you storming in here and bitching about using AN as a forum for discussing a dispute is a symptom of instruction creep and bureaucracy. Your attitude isn't "solve the problem", it's "you're solving the problem, but not in the right place, therefore you're doing it wrong!" You should be a director at my company, you'd fit right in. Tan ǀ 39 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument might have merit if...

Dropping it on AN did actually resolve the problem, which, oh, it hasn't. And really it's just opened up more drama.
There wasn't a better place to discuss it.

Heck, why bother with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment, when everything could be put on WP:AN!--Barberio (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Barberio, bridges burnt are seldom easy to repair. That's the first point. Pissing people off is rarely a good strategy if you intend to hang around here awhile. The next point is to repeat what I've said above. You don't need to always go to DR. Why? If I drop in on an admin's talkpage to draw their attention to some idiot that is edit warring to say that the sun rises in the west, should that admin and I be forced to go off hand in hand to DR given that this is a mere content dispute? No, I think not. So, we can see that we thrive here on many things, including our flexibility, a hangover from when this site was much more anarchic than it is now. Get used to it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want everyone to be bringing their content disputes to WP:AN from now on? --Barberio (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., the date stamp on my first registered account edit here is 11:34, 2 July 2005. And I've felt free to argue and dispute things James Wales has said, and tell the ArbCom off for overstepping their bounds. So let's not lecture me on 'burning bridges'? I'm not here to be liked or popular, I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia. --Barberio (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, no, I think I have made myself abundantly clear. Each case should be viewed on its merits, and then an appropriate course of action determined. And importantly, given your question, what part of what I posted above was unclear, by the way, just for my future reference?

To your second, well, remember that Wikipedia is a community a bit like a village or (these days) a small town. Your remark that you're "not here to be liked or popular, I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia" equates to and demonstrates enjoyment of or at least contentment with a bit of antagonism, ruffling feathers, pissing people off, whatever phrase you feel fits. Well, you can go down that road, but if you annoy people, especially pretty high profile ones, good luck next time you need some assistance. Oh, and by the way, there is always the option of putting your point firmly, forcefully, determinedly, straightforwardly, but without the antagonism in which you have indulged yourself this evening. Just a thought :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was perfectly polite, I just said things that some administrators do not appear to want to hear. (ie, that they're supposed to go through Dispute Resolution like the rest of us)

I feel no compulsion to soft soap people who use language and tone like Tanthalas39 has. --Barberio (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that JzG was asking for a sanction of an editor, which people have (so far) declined to do. Such a request is not a content dispute. —Kurykh 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and it should have started and ended with that. But as demonstrated, a lot of people seem to think content disputes are okay for discussion on WP:AN now. And strangely, get abusive and resort to obscenity when asked to take it to WP:DR like any other editor.--Barberio (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your statement is only half correct. The discussion about the appropriate sanction, if one is to be applied, is ongoing. —Kurykh 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone say that, either? Do you just make shit up or what? We don't have a problem with "too much stuff at AN". I mentioned in one of my first posts in this thread that you could have mildly mentioned to them that maybe next time, take to DR, or the article talk page, or one of the involved editor's talk pages. However, you opted to be stiff, inflexible and stubborn over a solution to a problem. Ultimately, who cares where the problem is solved? We're not getting paid for this. Absolutely nothing says "Thou must go to Dispute Resolution". DR exists as a possibility, an option for people who want to use it. The fact that this - this - is what you are worried about here, instead of saying, "hey, here's a couple editors hashing out a problem", is ridiculous. And your new "PS" there just serves to illustrate your bitterness and "I've been here longer, listen to me!!" attitude. People like you don't help problems, you create them. As, ironically, I feel I am starting to do here, so I bow out. I'll read your response, tho, so feel free to have the last word... Tan ǀ 39 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My p.s. was solely in response to the "if you intend to hang around here awhile", which was an attempt to pull the "as I've been here longer than you have" argument. --Barberio (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with JzG on this matter. Wikipedia is not here to provide a soapbox for every kook with a theory to push. Jtrainor (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Wikipedia is not here to provided a soapbox for anybody, whether they may be considered kooks, or not, by people with different agendas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're having fun, but...

I'd like to return the discussion to the actual administrative issue here, which is whether any sort of editing restriction is warranted. As per my last post a section above, I propose 1RR for Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) on cold-fusion-related pages, on the basis that he is edit-warring explicitly to disproportionately promote an agenda. A couple of uninvolved admins (Sandstein and Nandesuka) expressed general support for some sort of action, while Ronnotel and CBD objected. I objected to the factual basis for their objections, and then... well, you see.

There's no consensus for a restriction at this point. I'd like to invite anyone considering contributing to this thread to ignore the immediately preceding section as a distraction and comment on the initial thread and 1RR proposal. If there is no further substantive discussion and support for 1RR by uninvolved editors and admins, I'll drop it. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only "agenda" he seems to be trying to promote is a personal belief in the truth, which he feels is backed by reliable sources. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The essence of the Neutral Point of View is that it should be possible for our readers to understand what the pro-cold-fusioneers and what the anti-cold-fusioneers believe once they have read the article on cold fusion. If such a controversial subject does not pass this test then it does not satify NPOV no matter how well referenced it may be. That is the main reason why pro-cold-fusioneers should not be excluded from the article without very good reason. Remember that for controversial subjects Wikipedia's aim is not so much to describe the subject (except for those parts where there is agreement from both sides) as it is to describe the controversy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about apples and I'm talking about carbeurators. He's edit-warring and fighting a battle to make Wikipedia reflect The Truth, not WP:NPOV. That's a very good reason to limit someone to 1RR. We don't "need" devoted cold-fusion promoters to write a good article on cold fusion - in fact, they are demonstrably counterproductive. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One side of the content dispute is asserting that he is breaking NPOV, but that has not been established. Did I mention this is a content dispute? And Guy seems to be edit warring more than anyone on that page. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, Ned, but I disagree. We all have a personal believe in sharing the truth, or we wouldn't be here. What the editor in question seems to have is a very strong POV, a focus bordering on SPA, a previously hidden COI, and a declaration of victory in using Wikipedia as a battleground. If he is really here for the sake of Wikipedia, rather than for pushing his POV, then he shouldn't have a problem taking six months or so off from the cold fusion articles and working on something else. On the evidence I've seen so far, I'd support any reasonable topic restriction, including the one proposed by MastCell above. William Pietri (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What COI? There is no COI. Being an SPA isn't something that's disruptive at all. People can choose to focus on one topic, or even article, if they please. And the comment about winning a battle.. get over it and stop being so over dramatic. You guys take offense to the stupidest things... This is a massive assumption of bad faith, and you people should find a trout to slap yourselves with. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The COI I'm referring to is being a partisan. I'll use myself as an example. I'm an expert on and strong advocate of a particular set of software development methods. I've spoken and written extensively on them. However, on Wikipedia, I don't really edit those articles. Why? Because my abiding interest in promoting an agenda is in direct conflict with my interest in helping with a great NPOV encyclopedia. I'm making no accusation of bad faith here; conflicts of interest are fiendishly hard to manage. I don't think being an SPA is a priori disruptive, but it correlates with being here to push an agenda, which I think is subtly corrosive. William Pietri (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching

One of the co-coordinators of Admin Coaching has semi-retired and removed himself from the position. I've said before I feel uncomfortable being the only coordinator. Would anyone else with some experience in the field be interested in helping out? MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geesh, when was the last time that page was updated? It's almost entirely false. Also, what is the specific role of the coordinator/s? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as {{historical}} and go back to the old way of letting people find coaches themself? –xeno (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MBis... I know this probably wasn't the feedback you were looking for, but I completely agree with Xeno. The page is not just outdated but otherwise problematic. I don't think we need a new coordinator, or any coordinator, frankly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. (and I agree with xeno too). Keeper ǀ 76 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to clarify, this isn't a dig at you or BM (MB AND BM, how about that), I just don't think there's enough admins participating in ADCO for it to be a well-functioning entity at the moment (as evidenced by the large number of backlogged requests). Much like the LOCE, it's probably better not to get peoples hopes up and instead have them pound the streets looking for a coach themselves. Just mho. –xeno (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does a co-ordinater actually do? WilyD 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matches coachees and coaches. –xeno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to further clarify my stance, it looks like most of the effort is in the encouragement of systematic editing in certain areas to increase likelihood of passing an RfA, something that the community appears to be sniffing out regardless of its being done in admin coaching or by the editor themselves. It's resulting in more candidates getting blindsided by negative results in RfAs as coaching, no matter how much people don't want to admit, can't teach maturity or other intangibles, probably the single most impotant qualities of a good admin. Bringing this back to the topic at hand, I'd be quite happy if this program fizzled out and we don't try to keep it going. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the fact that the programme appears to be aimed at getting people to and through an RFA? The mentoring concept behind it is a good one - it's basically an extension of the adoption programme - where it takes those people who have been around long enough to master the basics of editing and contributing, so wouldn't fall under the current adoption scheme, and then takes them "behind the scenes" and shows them how to contribution not just on a content-level, but on a project-level. That's a good thing, surely - the more people participate in XfDs, and the project and community side of things the better. Maybe, then, convert it into more of an adoption scheme for not-so-newbies...? _GB^T/C 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to this, I got the job by default when the last coord retired from WP, in Feb 2008 me and Balloonman tried cleaning it up as best as we could, recruiting new coaches, etc. I agree we may have failed and wouldn't object to retiring the coordinator part of the wikiproject. If we do tag it as historical, we will need to update the Esperanza close, the RFA instructions, and remind people not to send NOTNOW RFA candidates to coaching. All up to you guys :) MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say you failed; a coordinator can only help as much as he has people willing to be coordinated. –xeno (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a pisser. I was hoping to get some coaching, not because of the maturity and "intangibles" (I am just immature enough to fancy myself equipped in that department ;D ) but because I am pretty sure an RfA for me would fail right now due to lack of relative lack of mainspace/article-building contribs and lack of experience with other people's RfA's and Wikiprojects. I was hoping for some pointers and coaching in how best to accumulate those types of contribs and experience, and for advice in when I had done enough of that type of work.

If the project has fallen apart, no sense in continuing it. But it's still a pisser. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No jay, admin coaching is not "gone" , but it's probably best if you find yourself a coach, rather than counting on the program. –xeno (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough of that type of work" for what? To pass an RfA? Just goes to emphasise the point that Gwynand made so eloquently above. Admin coaching is pants. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know any that are available? :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that User:Revolving Bugbear recently lightened her load. –xeno (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article. Go page through a few AfD's per day (just be aware that people will scrutinize every comment you make in XfD at your future RfA). Most WikiProjects are pretty desultory affairs - I wouldn't worry too much about that. Do it cause you want to, not cause you want to be an admin. The difference is usually pretty obvious at RfA. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice MastCell. Good to hear not to worry about WikiProjects; my opinion of them has so far been roughly consistent with "desultory affairs", and so the "do it caust you want to, not cause you want to be an admin" is just not going to happen there :D

I already participate in XfDs that catch my eye, and would have no problem just stepping that up a bit.

The main thing I really want help with is, yeah, getting some GA/FA stuff. I'd like to do it, but I'm not sure where to start. I glanced at Giano's guide once before, but not in-depth. I'll take another look now. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just start by finding a subject that you're genuinely interested in, however obscure. In fact, the more obscure the better. For your own sanity, make sure it's not the subject of active controversy, unless you're a masochist. Collect some references, organize the article, and tidy it up with wikilinks and the like. Ask User:SandyGeorgia if she would be kind enough to review it for stylistic issues. List it at peer review and be polite, even if the feedback is that it sucks. While you're there, peer-review a few other articles. Then ~~arrange with someone over IRC to pass it as a good article~~ nominate it for GA or, if the peer review was favorable and the article is substantial enough, you can go straight to WP:FAC. While you're there, review a few other candidates. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while you're at it, ~~vandalize~~ "radically rework" MastCell's userpage a few times. There will be a barnstar in it for you! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching is usually total silliness; the question is whether the user has established a record of being civil, productive and trustworthy and has done enough work on articles to demonstrate a commitment to the purpose of Wiki and an understanding of policy and tricky editing situations. I'm pretty sure that a tour of my record at XfD would show dismal results, perhaps even a batting record in the wrong direction; point being, trustworthy editors know their own weaknesses, and if given the tools, would stay away from those areas, so demanding experience in certain areas strikes me as foolishness. Do a good job in whatever you do, do sufficient article work, show that you're trustworthy and committed, and RfA should be no problem. Don't do that, and no amount of coaching will help. Show up with ill-prepared FAC noms of articles that you've rarely edited and were passed by your friends at GAN so that you can comply with an admin-coaching checklist, or support a lot of FACs that eventually fail because other reviewers identify serious deficiencies, and be assured you may encounter an Oppose from me at RFA :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eh, I passed with no FAs, FLs, DYKs, any of that. See User:Xenocidic/Archive 1#Contributions. –xeno (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking a lot about this, partly in light of a lot of the responses that we've had to the RfA Review. On the one hand, there's the feeling that admin coaching can be little more than training someone to pass a test or RfA. On the other hand, there's the thought that training editors on how to use the various behind-the-scenes areas of Wikipedia can be a force for good when done correctly, as long as improving the editor's capabilities and not becoming an administrator is the goal of the coaching. Perhaps the programme needs to evolve slightly, picking up from the Adopt-a-user programme and extending editor training to some of the more advanced areas that they may find themselves in, helping to find them a niche in which they feel they can participate comfortably at a level they are happy with. I think you will need some form of coach-coachee matching, as different editors have their fields of work in different areas, and it would be prudent to match a potential coachee's areas of interest to those a coach is strong in. I also think that by evolving it from an Admin Coaching banner to an Advanced Editor coaching one, you may end up with more experienced editors and admins willing to support the programme. I think that there are possibly other fringe benefits from this change, partly perceptional, partly actual, that could become apparent the more this is examined. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? _GB^T/C 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much an echo as a convoluted way of agreeing with you :) Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflict; I have not read Xenocidic's, Gazimoff's, or Gb's latest contribs, so sorry if something they said is relevant to my comments below)

@Malleus Fatuorum: Perhaps if you agree with Gwynand, you would like to ask him what he thinks about me&adminship. ;)

The bottom line is this: To successfully pass an RfA requires that one demonstrate proficiency at a number of different tasks, and yet after the RfA most admins wind up performing only the subset of those tasks which they are good at and/or particularly enjoy.

This is not a criticism of the RfA process; I think there are very good reasons why we expect this. For example, achieving an FA will give a prospective admin a level of experience in vetting the reliability of sources that would be difficult to achieve otherwise. Even if that person goes on after their RfA to never work on a single FA ever again, the experience could be extremely valuable in other contexts, e.g. determining whether a sourced-but-critical addition to a BLP needs to be reverted posthaste because the source is not reliable; or explaining to a user why they were blocked for repeatedly adding an unreliable source.

I will never be good at doing the kind of legwork required to put together enough sources for an FA. The legwork aspect of it is just not something I particularly enjoy. However, if I don't get at least some experience doing that sort of legwork, not only would it be likely to torpedo any chance at passing an RfA, but the lack of said experience would also very likely make me an inferior admin even if I were to pass.

So when I say I want a coach to help prompt me as to when I've had "enough of that type of work", I do mean on one hand to pass an RfA, yes; but I mean on the other hand that I'd like an experienced admin to tell me if they think I've had enough experience in that realm to gain a true understanding of what really goes into that type of work.

I hope this clears things up! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now that I've got some admin attention, another question: I have seen some places that participation in other folks' RfAs is generally considered a prerequisite to one's own RfA. Now, I read other people's RfAs fairly often, but I've never felt particularly moved to !vote in one, or to add a question, etc. Two part question: Would that be considered a weakness at an RfA? And also, as per my explanation above as to why I want to work on article building some more before attempting on RfA, is there some indirect benefit to one's adminship qualifications of RfA participation that I am not seeing? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to the first question would be that I don't see the question of whether the candidate has !voted on other RFAs as being even remotely relevant in determining which way I'll !vote for them... _GB^T/C 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say Jaysweet, that you are doing an absolutely brilliant job of pre-canvassing for your future RfA :-). You will definitely get my vote, as admins are primarily politicians :-) (this is all said in jest BTW, I don't really think this) Keeper ǀ 76 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To jump back in here, and use Jay as my guinea pig... you definitely don't need an admin coach, you are way too generally competent to gain a net positive from specifically listing one person as your "admin coach" who despite their best intentions will likely do wonders in terms of getting your numbers/ratios ready for a succesful RfA. It's quite contrary to the natural flow of things on Wikipedia, as in a large collaborative project, and frankly it would be transparently obvious that goal of someone like yourself getting coached is simply making sure you can get through the RfA, but not that you are helping the project in doing so. While I think there are some cases where minor article work can be overlooked for otherwise highly competent candidates, it is totally logical and in the right of the community to expect proof of effort and knowledge in writing articles on a project where writing is the goal. Jay, you can certainly figure that out on your own, and in the daunting effort of improving an article to GA/FA, I advise you in collaborating or asking questions to anyone you please on how to do so, but as for the formal admin coach who will keep an eye on counts and ratios and the like, I'd say avoid it. You might won't become the ultimate "RfA candidate", but I genuinely believe you'll be a better contributor if you do it on your own. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I've seen this Wikipedia dynamic before: an idea that's basically really good is seriously undermanned because the community fails to appreciate its importance, and because it lacks sufficient manpower and organization it doesn't function as well as it could, and rather than give it the support it deserves someone starts a motion to dismantle it entirely. Coaching and training is normal preparation for positions of responsibility; Wikipedia is not intrinsically different from the rest of the world in that regard. Yet because our training is so deficient, the few people who become administrators are mostly a rare breed who figure things out for themselves. Over time, because we've never remedied those shortcomings, we've collected an admin corps of highly motivated self-starters who collectively do not think training is useful. Because we've failed to develop a concept of best practices (which is really fundamental to organized coaching), a lot of coaching gets done badly. That's a reason to put more effort into the area, not to dismantle it. Please see User:Durova/RFA Review boycott. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through trial and error is really the only way to can really know how to use the tools properly though. We don't need more admin coaches, just more people who are willing to nominate users. Wizardman 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through trial and error is really the only way to really know how to drive a car properly. Nobody construes that as a reason to abolish driver's education classes. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through trial and error is the only way to become a lawyer. Close the law schools. Learning through trial and error is the only way to become a heart surgeon. Close the medical schools.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best lawyers first go to school, THEN learn by trial and error. Every doctor I know of first went to school, then learned by trial and error (what do you think an intern does? a resident? Learns. He or she has a more experienced doctor supervising so that the errors don't kill people... but believe me, the first time a raw intern goes to put an IV needle in will be a trial for someone. Probably the patient... Close the schools? only if you want the error rate to go way way way up. But no trial and error? Nope. That doesn't strike me as a very intelligent way to design a training program. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have three doctors in my family. Don't get sick in July. New interns start July 1 every year. The hospitals are always a mess at that time. I think admin coaching is most useful after to tools are granted. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess John and I are outlyers, we see the coaching role as more focusing on the introspection and motivation part, and our role to weed out those who would not be happy as admins, rather than focusing on the blocking and tackling and mechanics and edit counts and suchlike. Not everyone who knows how to push particular buttons ought to actually be allowed to push them. But even our best laid plans seem to fail as our last coachee, regrettably, did not pass... we should have caught that and saved some effort for everyone, but we didn't. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the greatest weakness in the coaching program was that, while it was fairly successful in teaching people what to do, and how to do it, there didn't seem to be much ability to help people understand why something should (or should not) be done. I've noticed several editors lately who spend a great deal of time in project space apparently following the edict to "act like an admin", rather than observing how good admins act. Shadowing a couple of admins who appear to be respected and occasionally asking them a question about why they chose a certain course of action would be more beneficial to those who plan to request adminship, I think. Carrying out self-tests where one analyses a real situation and then develops and rationalises an action plan is also useful (for example, reviewing 10 articles up for PROD and detailing one's thinking on whether or not to delete, what steps were taken in coming to that decision, etc.). Just my two cents. Risker (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's currently listed on this, and given that I'm unlikey to be got to any time soon, I'd have to say I think there's a great deal of merit to the project.

I will not dispute in any way any statements that AC tells people what to edit to some extent rather than why, but given the !votes I've read on hundreds of RfAs a great deal of peopl would rather see a candidate have edits in 'adminly areas' rather than concentrating on a specific area (usually WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:AIV etc).

I have seen a great deal of !votes on RfAs where candidates have made quite clear that they will be working in areas such as these which tend to be the most backlogged (or at least end up backlogged more often than other areas even if they don't always stay so for long), but the RfA fails as so many people feel that people have not made an artilce up to GA/FA or contributed to the WP namespace.

Perhaps this is a problem with the lack of criteria for adminship rather than the voters themselves but if a potential admin makes clear that they're going to be active in these areas, then telling them they've not been active in the WP namespace or to make up an FA/GA is self defeating?

I'd have thought that if you have a user that an admin coach (who will obviously usually be an active admin so you would hope they know ;)) thinks would be excellent in the areas they want to contribute in but they would fail due to lack of WP edits then would it not make sense to assist these users by giving them pointers as to what they would need to work on? I'm not advocating telling a person you need to propose a new naming convention or propose a new subguideline or something like that but if we get an admin in a backlogges area out of it would that not be preferable?

Not only this but most of the tasks that are set by the coaches (from what I've seen) tend to be 'real life' examples of what would come up. For example many have a "Would you delete this article test" or how would you close this AfD. It's a chance to make the big "cock ups" (apologies for the angloism) where it won't matter before a new admin goes charging in and deletes the main page! BigHairRef | Talk 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always regarded RFA as one of the least important elements of admin coaching. Certainly it's necessary to pass it, but if a candidate is well suited and prepared that takes care of four-fifths of RFA. The remainder is communicating with the voters. Coaching doesn't end with RFA either, any more than learning to drive a car ends with gaining a licence. Good instruction is neaver really about passing this or that exam; it's about conveying information and building skills. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest tagging it as historical because most figures and stats are so outdated. The process is not successful, in my opinion. I am one of those admins that joined this program in the hopes of becoming an admin. Then first RfA failed due to my participation and interaction with the admin coach. I dropped out of the program and then became an admin without further help from any admin coach. Overall, the goal of the project sounds promising to potential admin candidates, but not really doing its purpose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the notion behind what Durova and others are saying, and for some reason almost assumed someone would bring up a comparison to law school or the like. Despite my fervent opposition to what admin coaching has become, I'm not so crazy as to suggest that any element of coaching or practice is bad, I myself tried to help get User:Pedro/Mentoring mentoring off the ground. To work with the law school comparison... to become a lawyer, one does not simply state one day, "hey, I want to be a lawyer, let me into law school!", rather, it comes after years of studying, a college degree, and a good score on the LSATs. Admittedly, of course becoming an admin is no where near what becoming a lawyer is, but at the same time adminship isn't becoming a hall monitor in high school either. It's an important position of some authority and power that is just difficult enough that not everyone can go willy nilly expecting to become one on a whim.

The proper coaching and practice I've personally envisioned consists of much more natural editing on your own, discussing issues with peers across various forums, asking questions early and often, etc. Even forums like User:Pedro/Mentoring were good, they totally ignored RfAs and were open to people who wanted to simply discuss difficult items. I hadn't clicked on the WP:ADCO link in a long time, and when I first did after MBisanz linked it here, I had a bit of a "Is that a joke/are you serious?" moment. Going back to the law school comparison... it basically looks like a page advertising how it can properly get someone through the Bar exam and what goes into that. What's worse were the horrible edit count minimums that it required potential coachees to have... essentially encouraging all the wrong things from the outset. The "Best Practices" notion is actually a very good one, but admin coaching and adoption programs have moved so far away from that that I am currently opposing continuing in ways that are even close to them. Opposing means, well, I'll be fairly vocal about just how bad I think most of these programs are and advise against them, but in the end, people can do whatever they want. I won't blanket oppose all forms of coaching, which I agree would be ridiculous, but just about anything based on the premises listed on the front of WP:ADCO I think are purely helpful to individuals for passing RfAs, not actually helping the community. Like teaching students how to get ready for and pass the bar, but ignoring what practicing law really means. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired and my eyes are starting to swim reading this thread - whoever said oomphing up adopt a user to swallow up admin coaching hit it on the head...the KISS strategy...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the opening post

Mbisanz asked for a co-coordinator volunteer for the admin coaching program. I don't have time to step forward in that role, but I'd be glad to work on a team to develop a "best practices" program. Any other volunteers? Durova^Charge! 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what coaching should be

The Coaching Pages were updated just a few months ago and when you consider how long it takes to get consensus to make changes here on WP, I'd say that was fairly recent. I would have no problem getting rid of the people looking for coaches page---I've found that page to be a waste of time myself. Most of the people on that page are not qualified and the 'consensus' a few months ago was that we shouldn't remove unqualified people. Most of my coachees have sought me out. I completely agree with Durova, coaching CAN be a crucial step to help people who aren't self starters get the experience/knowledge necessary to becoming a coach. I think the Coaching Pages can still be helpful---but I think the focus should be on "how to coach." IMO most of the people who do coaching, do not prepare their candidates adequately. And by that, I mean, they give them drive by assignments "Go do a single FAC review" now "Go welcome 25 people to the project" now "Go vote on 20 AfD's." These drive by's don't help and give coaching a bad name. Coaching is about developing the editor... it should be an extended editor review that challenges the user to try new things... to establish a footprint in places he/she might not have...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be ideal - and make the focus on people seeking out coaches themselves. If this is the decision, I can bot-spam the people still on that list and let them know they should pound the streets themselves. –xeno (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ban for multiple sockpuppeteer?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby community-banned. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question. At what point does a multiple sockpuppeteer become unwelcome in the community? I refer to User:Brunodam who seems to prefer to set up "other voices" rather than edit as himself. See User:Popovichi, User:Cherso, User:Dalmata, User:BurtReed, User:Marygiove, User:ItaliaIrredenta, User:Pannonicus and most recently User:Merighi. Further info available at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam (2nd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brunodam. Bruno got blocked for a week [12] for socking; I would like the community to consider whether this regular and prolific socker who obviously has scant regard for the project's rules should be welcome to contribute anymore. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always unfortunate when we have to issue a ban to an individual, but in this case, I think everybody's better off this way. Endorse ban proposal. Anthøny 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support too. Quite possibly the worst, most persistent sock puppeteer I have seen. Oh, and kudos to AlasdairGreen27 for the time invested in outlining the case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to say it? :) Support. For some strange reason, "irredentist" Users (like PIO and Brunodam) persist in incessantly creating socks. They get banned, and then usually blame me for it :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was banned. Zenanarh (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban: This is far from the worst I have seen, though. Personally, I think we need to tighten our sock rules significantly. I can't envision many cases where having more than one sock is reasonable, and would be happy enough to make having more than one sock a blockable offense.
Kww (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban. It's one thing to offer somebody a second chance, but a 15th or 16th chance is not needed. A ban on User:Brunodam will simplify future record-keeping in sock investigations, and unfortunately there are likely to be more such. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather self-evident, isn't it, that this thread can only have one result? Good sleuthing. Sandstein 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all involved Admins appear to have consensus, can we expect to see an end to this nasty affair? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally shocked by the infamous accusations that I have received: I will no more participate in the english Wikipedia. Only a "kid" can dream of travelling thousands of miles from Colorado to Florida to New York to Italy in order to write some posts on Wikipedia! And why I have to spend my time in order to create multiple socks? Only today I have found some additional hours to write on the english Wikipedia and suddenly I find myself with childish offenses on my talkpage and even this requested ban. This is my full name:Professor Bruno D'Ambrosio; address: (redacted); phone:(redacted). I don't have any sockpuppet in your english wikipedia! Many of you know that webservers (like Earthlink) in the USA have multiple IP that can be used by many persons at the same day in the same area: the checkup cannot be 100% precise, ask those who work with it! I have just written a farewell letter to Jimbo [13].--Brunodam (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brunodam, you don't have socks? You've simply been absent from Wikipedia since April and have incredibly returned just in time to write up the above? I must say, even if we disregard all the SSP reports, your story is hard to believe. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same user was blocked a long time ago (1, 2, 3) on itwiki for using SPs to alter consensus and legal threats, same areas of interest, same IP ranges; he also spammed his defamatory blog for months. --Brownout ^(msg) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. If there are any itwiki admins around they may well be keen to read that since February he's been socking there as Utente Jr. [14].
Anyway, this thread's been here for four days now and, other than dear old Bruno himself, we seem to be unanimous. Perhaps it's time to close and act on this one?? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oh Hai, can I has backlog?

Resolved

Good morning. It looks like we've been busy with CSD tagging - There are currently 368 pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The majority seem to be articles, though I'm seeing quite a few templates as well. Some eyes from my fellow admins would be of value, I think.

The current live count, or close to it (since PAGESINCAT isn't exactly accurate), is thus: All CSDs = -13. Thanks again for your help! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working. It's still at 128 right now. Raygun time. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for their help - we're hovering around 100 now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 4, I'm marking this resolved. Hut 8.5 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirm admin proposal

There is a proposal to autoconfirm admins. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Autoconfirm admins" is a bit disingenuous. The proposal is (or was) to grant adminship by simple request if someone passed arbitrary account age and edit count criteria. It has been SNOW-rejected. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help at WP:SSP?

I know it looks daunting, but even a little bit can go a long way. We lost User:Shalom Yechiel and a few others who used to look at sockpuppet cases. Now it gets very little attention from admins, or anyone, actually. Enigma ^message 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took care of 9 of them... Still 50+ left to deal with. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Enigma ^message 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look there but was dissuaded by the lack of instructions. Is there anything non-admins can do there? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to be an administrator, although it helps. If you're not an administrator, you can look through the evidence and give your opinion, so that when an admin comes, there's less work for them to do. That's what User:Shalom Yechiel used to do, even though he wasn't an admin. Enigma ^message 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CmdrObot is working for Amazon!

Resolved

– notifying user has been awarded a barnstar for his dillegence, The 'non Amazon' bot will continue editing --AdultSwim (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While making some commendable edits, this bot is adding commercials for Amazon.com . Lots and lots of them!

02:01, 23 September 2006 Pseudomonas (Talk | contribs) (Replacing Amazon Book URLs with ISBNs - using AWB) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:00, 19 March 2006 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (Compact Amazon URL; unicodify) (undo)

This bot should be prevented from adding linkspam.Fconaway (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are from 2006. ? Enigma ^message 07:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified User:Cmdrjameson of this thread. Enigma ^message 07:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the bot is fixing the urls not adding any. Look at all the recent edits the bot has made Fconaway, and look at reverts you made of the bot. The bot is compacting the url that was already there! Not adding any. Also "Replacing Amazon Book URLs with ISBNs" he is adding ISBNs, that's good! Please stop reverting the bot. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this assessment. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled back all Fconaway's reversions of the bot's earlier edits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The bot does a good job as far as it goes, but the spam's still there.Fconaway (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the project is full of Amazon spam, feel free to nuke as much of it as you can handle. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception, of course, of ASIN where ISBN, OCLC and ISSN are found wanting. Skomorokh 10:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't work for Amazon, and all I'm doing is removing cruft (and identifying information) from overlong Amazon URLs. Someone suggested to me recently that it might be replacing Amazon links that are just ISBN-10s (and not ASINs) with the appropriate ISBN magic word. On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea to me. Would people be in favour of this? Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Amazon links with isbns when it is obvious how to do so sounds like a good project for a bot to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! There are so many (which have crept in by good faith editing) that they can't be handled one by one. I suspect there may be links to other retailers, as well. We shouldn't favor any of them over the hardworking guy down the street. ISBNs, etc., go far enough.Fconaway (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User hit by Scibaby rangeblock

Resolved

– On advice of Thatcher, IPblockexempt not granted. –xeno (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the unblock request at User talk:Bacasper. It seems he's been hindered by a hardblock of a range used by Scibaby. Should the IPblockexempt flag be granted? –xeno (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Related concerns at User talk:72.58.90.54 / User talk:68.27.99.212. Offer to create account and IPblockexempt, or...?~~ –xeno (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just checked the IPs aren't hardblocked, so I'll offer to create an account for them. Should the user get IPblockexempt? –xeno (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime.

I have unblocked User:VigilancePrime. He has given me assurances that the issues that led to his indefinite block will not recur. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about this Morven. I've been in email contact with him because he asked me to help him get unblocked. I said I wasn't prepared to do that without an assurance that he stayed well away from the pedophile article topic. His editing there was less than helpful, and I suspect he would have been swiftly blocked solely for his POV pushing on those articles not to long after he created the userboxes. He made no such assurance to me, and made it clear he was to continue his battles with the anti-pedophilia group of editors - he said he'd never agree to edit under such terms. Personally - I think this unblock is going to increase the problems on those articles and will lead to a lot more work, for very little gain. If this unblock is to stay, I'd like to suggest a community restriction banning him from any pedophile related articles or pedophile topic discussions on Wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely uncomfortable with this as well. "he has given me assurances..." They must be pretty darn good assurances then, because I'm not convinced yet. Wizardman 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were. If he returns and causes problems I have no problem with reblocking him, and no problem with anyone else doing so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So clue us in: what, exactly, were those assurances? --Calton | Talk 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily that he will avoid the pedophile articles completely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my Wikipedia experience, an editor who makes an undertaking to avoid a subject area or even specific articles does so publicly, by way of a personal statement on his/her User page or, if unable or unwilling to make such a statement, is given an article or topic ban. Enforcing something as nebulous as a statement of "primarily, he will avoid the pedophile articles completely" on this page that will be archived in just a few days would be problematical, to say the least. Perhaps Morwen can publish the unblock conditions on Prime's talk page for all to know and understand, including Prime himself. Clarity is useful to all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if he stays away from PAW then this is okay as a PAW member. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock, based on the topic restriction as posted on the user's talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add - Ryan is correct that pedophile topic discussions (talk pages and Wikipedia-space) are also of concern; I strongly support inclusion of those pages under the restriction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this idea, seems to overly broad and could be misconstrued. Would he have been wrong to comment in that shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I? I do not support allowing people back only to set them up to fail, not that I think he deserved to be banned in the first place.

On a side note, it is pleasing to see that ArbCom is trying to reform. I'm glad to see that open discussion and community input is no longer forbidden. Now if you would kindly vacate the secret trials bit, I think that would put everyone at ease. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Som,etimes I'm slow: Which "shameful bash-jeffpw thread that is happening on AN/I?" - brenneman 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate picture?

Resolved

– Image deleted by Gwen Gale as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. –xeno (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable admin when it comes to image policy, so maybe I'm missing something, but this image doesn't sit right with me. Of course Wikipedia isn't censored, and I don't doubt that the uploader took the picture, but I don't see any assertion that the model willingly posed for the picture. Again, I'm not the best with images, but given the nature of the image aren't there personality rights or something that we have to take into account? I could be completely wrong here, and if so please set me straight. :-) faithless (^speak) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the personality rights policy you're looking for is commons:COM:PEOPLE. While we don't require written model releases or anything, images taken in public and images that are obviously posed and uploaded by an editor in good standing are generally viewed more favorably than images that were taken surreptitiously or in private settings and uploaded by an unknown quantity. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:One Stop Piercing Shop 1.jpg for a recent example of this in action.

Of course, this only applies to identifiable people--images without a visible face or other obvious identifying features visible are generally only a concern if it becomes apparent that they were taken inappropriately (e.g. upskirt shots) or depict a minor in a sexual or otherwise inappropriate nature. And of course, we are generally willing to delete images if the model requests they be taken down. --jonny-m t 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the above link: Normally not OK - Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent). So since it's on a beach - I guess we're OK, yes? Follow up question, is having a nude photo appropriate in Bikini? People might not be expecting one. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all right here--I believe this picture is posed to boot. As far as nudity in Bikini goes, I've always been a big fan of nudity in the proper context, so if it's appropriate then I don't have any problems with it personally. --jonny-m t 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This search (note - also NSFW unless you work in a strip club etc) shows a monokini generally to be a one piece bathing suit, so I'm not sure how much use a picture of a topless woman is in this context. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, monokini should have its own article, and be forked from the bikini article. Bikini article can have bikinis and a monokini article can have monokinis and pictures of them. Makes sense to me. Not sure why it's part of one article. Enigma ^message 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose fair warning is given in the lead paragraph. =) –xeno (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have a problem with this sort of picture in context, but a search with TinEye and some followup work with the Internet Archive shows that this picture is all over voyeur picture forums, and has been for coming up on two years. E.g. [15]. That makes it highly likely that this is not legitimately licensed under the GFDL. William Pietri (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the uploader removed himself as author also lends credence to this. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, snap's ok for an article like bikini but the licensing info seems more than dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as lacking permission from author for a non-fair use image. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image as lacking source/licensing info, possible copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG membership nomination

Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of a request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone take a look at this mass deletion of Nobel Prize pictures

Please here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page--as long as he's willing to discuss it, there's nothing that needs to be done. --jonny-m t 05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location articles

For some reason all of the articles about cities and towns are coming out malformatted. Check out Tenafly, NJ, Newark, NJ, etc... I thought it might have something to do with the template but I check out Template:Infobox Settlement which are used in these articles and don't see anything wrong.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any malformation. Fixed already? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see it. Like the infoboxes for these articles are on the left and it brings down all the article content below it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me too. Try purging your cache. Synergy 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did that and it still looked malformed. Then I just changed the skin and went back to the same articles and it looked fine. It seems that the articles only show up messed up for the "Modern" skin for some reason.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 15 hours ago, the site was updated, and the Modern and Simple skins were broken in the process (bugzilla:14954). The issue has been fixed internally and will go live sometime soon-ish. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I thought I was the only one that was seeing it and was crazy lol thanks I'll just keep a different skin until those skins get fixed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Children's Privacy

Could an administrator respond to the concerns in this thread [16]? There is personal information of minors in the thread above it. Could an administrator delete the age of specific young Wikipedians mentioned in the thread [17][18]? There may be others, but those were the ones I saw. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware age was considered personal information. BJ^Talk 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally self-identifying as a minor is removed, due to the privacy concerns for the minor, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy for more details. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom page says "children", not "minors". Some people need to read the ArbCom ruling more closely; it says to remove such information when "appropriate", not to blindly blank and be proud of ourselves for being "protective". —Kurykh 08:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. I don't think anybody seriously believes that a child disclosing their age is a threat to the child's safety. — Werdna • talk 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age on it's own isn't great, IMO, but still isn't the end of the world. Age plus school/full name/location = Not Good™. It's just a matter of using common sense, folks - Alison ^❤ 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ER, Kurykh childen = minors (in a legal sense). KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ArbCom intended to force all admins to remove all references of age if the number happens to be <18. —Kurykh 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee motions for discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing two motions to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to three prior cases. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the areas of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The areas of conflicts have been defined as "articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" for the Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases, and as "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" for the Digwuren case.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case pages linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is an "area of conflict"? This means that anything associated with Eastern Europe is covered by the ruling? Everyking (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be how I would interpret it, although I would apply a bit of common sense; an edit war over Anna Kournikova's bust size is not likely to be a nationalism-based dispute, although she is from Eastern Europe. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it supposed to be applied only in cases where nationalism is involved? Everyking (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism was the underlying cause of the whole Digwuren case, and remedy 8 addresses that concern, although the arbcom did not use the incendiary term "nationalism". Horologium (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly interpreted it would mean everything east of Switzerland and west of the Urals. Surely the committee can afford to tighten up the wording a bit. — CharlotteWebb 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing

Could someone please deal with this user. He is causing aggrovation and conflict all over the place, and has been for months now, in his relentless campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles. I'm concerned with GENUKI and similar articles, but his trolling is affecting a very wide area of this encyclopedia. Is there nothing than can be done to stop this user - apparently not, so far! 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to back your claim up with some diffs, as I'm not seeing what the problem is. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at pretty much any article edit HighKing makes. All he ever does is remove "British Isles" from articles. This is getting out of hand, a look at his talk page archives shows this issue has been brought up with him time and time again. Chillum 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone notified the user of this thread? I don't see it on his talkpage. Perhaps there's some methodology here that is easily explained or workable? Keeper ǀ 76 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just did. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper, this does seem like a problem. Maybe a possible block is in order. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a block at this point, perhaps 48 hours with a warning to stop or face longer blocks. Also, 82 did notify HighKing of this thread[19]. Chillum 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and if you look in the archives of WP:AN and WP:ANI you will see that this issue has come up a few times in the past both as HighKing and his old name Bardcom. Chillum 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Chillum (and IP), I don't know how I didn't see that diff, sorry for the redundancy. The frequency of "issues" doesn't have anything to do with the current post from IP 82 or the subsequent notification, but I should've still seen that diff, it was my error for not. Stepping out. Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response specifically to the anon IP complainer above, the consensus on the GENUKI article was that because the primary source - the GENUKI website itself - described the top level as "Common to all of British Isles", then the article continued to use the term. The GENUKI website appears to have been updated and has corrected this anomalous usage. Since the consensus was to agree with the primary source, I've changed the article to now reflect "Common to all of the United Kingdom and Ireland". This has also been explained on the article Talk page. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or most likely WP:IVECHANGEDMYMINDABOUTAGREEINGTOUSETHEPRIMARYSOURCEASTHEWAYTODECIDETHIS.

In response specifically to the suggestion of a block, I have spent most of the day discussing with User:DdStretch some of the edits, and I've provided references for each. @Julian, you say there seems to be a problem - please take the time to look closer at my edits, and the discussions. Each edit is correcting an incorrect use of the term "British Isles", with references. This takes a lot of time on my account, and I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect. If you follow my discussion with User:Ddstretch (an admin) today, you will see this. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only. Chillum 16:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum, you have taken an interest in this for quiet some time, always making loose and foggy accusations and generally just adding to the background noise. Please be specific. What reasons have changed? What specific edits do you object to? Where did you discuss them? This speaks more to me as at least I can have a stab at responding to the accusations. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there was no consensus on the GENUKI Talk page, you just left it alone in the face of contra arguments. But then, presumably not wanting to be defeated, you've come back for another go at getting rid of British Isles. You say you do not edit any article that takes your fancy - no, it appears that you look at articles linked to British Isles and then knock them off, one after another. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article Talk page for the discussion and agreement. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are a lot of British editors on Wikipedia that simply give a knee-jerk reaction when they see an accusation that someone is removing the term "British Isles" - I expect this reaction at this stage. The previous WP:AN and WP:ANI were rejected because it is seen as a content dispute. I respectfully request any admins looking at this to consider if this is a case of some editors over-reacting when they see this accusation, and not looking beyond this to see if my edits are making the encyclopedia better and more accurate. I am always civil, and always AGF, and always am happy to discuss and am very responsive. I always welcome collaboration on articles. Last night, I disagreed with User:CarterBar over some articles, and we agreed to take some time to think about it and we'd talk later today - the articles are remaining with the phrase "British Isles" in the meantime. If you check out my edits and comments and general behaviour over the past couple of days or longer, I believe you will see for yourselves that once again there appears to be an over-reaction taking place. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not edit any article that takes my fancy, but only those that are incorrect" falsely alleges Bardcom. Challenge Cup was right until Bardcom went near it (source). He does not edit articles that are "incorrect", but ones he thinks are incorrect based on usually nothing more than his ill-informed opinion. EmpireForever (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different competition and a different cup. Your recent edits have now added incorrect facts to the article. You might want to revert yourself. (Kinda proves the theory that it's a lot easier to use the term "British Isles" incorrectly that correcting the articles after you...) Also, another SPA focused on my edits, the editor who brought the failed ANI. Checkuser anyone? --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, as anyone with a basic knowledge of rugby league knows. There is only one rugby league Challenge Cup in the British Isles, see this for some information to show it is the correct one (source). My edit was right, yours was not. EmpireForever (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA. Chillum 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you only see what you set out to look for.... I've edited on many technology articles, on Irish articles, on local Dublin articles, on whiskey and sport related articles. And I've never denied my interest in housekeeping on the term British Isles either, but makes me an SPA in the same way that WMC is a global warming SPA. Different than EmpireForever. Checkuser anyone? :-) I think it would be enlightening... --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will be honest, I only checked your last dozen or so contribs each time you ended up on this noticeboard, about 3 or so times, and each time your edits were pretty much just that. If you are doing other things then I guess I would have to sift deeper to find them. Chillum 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - most of the time attention is drawn only when activity on the subject is more than normal. BTW, it's pretty hard to put up with attitudes like this though. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. And now it's gone all quiet again. Huh. The diffs above are pretty racist. Anybody want to do something about them? --HighKing (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block on User:HighKing is not necessary. When looking at his edits in detail you can see he does a bit of other stuff as well, but not much. What's needed here is something to stop him editing articles to remove the usage of British Isles. That's where all the aggravation is caused, and there's a lot of it. He really does cause a problem and it looks like it has been going on since about March. He must stop this provocative editing. 82.14.71.91 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom/HighKing's crusade against Britishness is continuing. He is removing sources that use British Isles, for no apparent reason. This really should be stopped. EmpireForever (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring on many articles. You refuse to discuss on the article Talk page. You refuse to discuss on any Talk page. You're up to your maximum edits on several pages, and now you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people here. Also, comments referring to Irish as terrorists (and I hope you weren't aiming that at me personally) is frowned upon and deserves to get you a block. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You are edit-warring on many articles" - pot, meet kettle. At least my edits have reliable sources, the ones you remove because they contain British Isles. EmpireForever (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Both HighKing and EmpireForever have been blocked for edit warring over the addition and removal of the term "British Isles". Chillum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting images

Does any admin find that when they delete images and choose the "Reason for deletion" dropdown menu, they couldn't find most of the CSD criteria (e.g. CSD I8) but instead presented with a dropdown normally for deleting articles? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed that it's poorly equipped to handle deletions under CSD other than the general and article ones. I could add support for images in a jiffy, if you'd like. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got my personal suggestions at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Image delete reasons, but some might be able to be left out or combined. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add User:AuburnPilot/csd.js to your monobook. It's a copy of ^demon's old script and contains all of the speedy criteria. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Script works great, but... if the image has an existing talk page, the script fails to work. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for adding more options to the list, but it should probably be put up for discussion at WP:VPP or somewhere else larger than here. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were there, but removed like 1 or 2 days ago for some reason that I don't know. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Indian articles

Hi there is an IP address probably from India which is wreaking havoc with some of the Bollywood articles. See his contributions. He persistently keeps adding POV to an article or glorifying an actor or film further than they or it actually is. It is a major nuisance for the editors on here who work on Indian cinema articles to have to keep reverting him day in day out just to maintain some sense of article neutrality. He has been warned many times and his persistence has resulted in edit conflicts on more than just a few articles. Could you please warn and/or block him and try to make him aware of wikipedias neutrality and why his edits which are intent on putting POV or glorifying the subject of the article unnecesarily may be construed as against policy and therefore vandalism. Its doing my nut it keeping track of him. User:Shshshsh (Shahid) raised my awarenss of it initially and other editors such as totalfilmi99 have to keep reverting him e.g here. Should he be blocked do you think? This is an exmaple of the kind of crap he keeps putting in articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked by Tanthalas39 already. Bring it back if IP is still disruptive after 31 hour block. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet

User:Rebafan11 is a known sockpuppet who continues to insert false info in articles. Please check into the edits this sockpupper has made. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "known sockpuppet" in this case meaning: someone with a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on their user page, added by User:Neutralhomer. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:Tanthalas39 has blocked this account. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

Note:I repaste this, because it was manually archived by User:Ncmvocalist along with its parent thread Archive455#Comfort_women. The matter is not even touched yet. And Nanshu (talk · contribs)'s problematic attitude continues like this.[20][21]

Past ANI Archive38 on 2channel and Nanshu

I've noticed that editors deeply associated with 2channel, Japanese biggest internet forum resume their systematic meat/sockpuppetry again. I predict this same disruption would repeat again because Checkuser system does not hold info more than 4 months and they know it and discuss about it.

Among them, User:Nanshu, being deeply associated with the Korean bashing forum also falsely accused me of abusing RFCU system to ANI to to evade much attention to them. I found his plot on one of 2channal pages. After this, Nanshu scarcely appeared to Wikipedia. Anyway, whatever article he has edited has been strongly opposed by Korean editors because of his tendency of exaggerating and distorting information to minimize Korean culture and history.[22] His view is always same as follows. Korea had been a tributary state of China but luckily saved and modernized by Japanese colonial rule. "Koreans always cook up with new theories to make themselves superior than Japan regardless of their Inferiority". He claims that Korean influence on ancient Japanese history is minor, so removes such information. Whoever objects to his tilted point of view, he accuses them of doing vandalism, even thought those accusation are actually content disputes cuased by him[23][24][25] This can be recently seen at Talk:Kangnido and Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. At Kangnido, he deliberately has repeatedly removed Korean geographer's credit in the lead and claims it as a mere Mongol's copy or tried to merge the article into other articles.

He also frequently makes personal attacks against me like "harmful to Wikepedia", "useless hard worker"[26], "doing things in unconstructive ways", "nuisance" and "obstruct" of Wikepedia[27], because I don't agree with his crooked point of views. Also his edit on Yeongeunmun Gate has been disputed by several editors, and 2channel people ridicule the gate and article as a symbol of Korea's humiliating diplomacy. So I put {{NPOV}} tag and he has tried to remove it as calling me "vandal" as his usual.[28][29] He also accused me of not improving the article. On the other hand, I have a lot of interests aside from Korean history, and he disappeared so often. Therefore, I don't feel urgent to edit Yeongeunmun Gate. He suddenly reappears again today and make a threat of accusing me again. I think this user's behaviors are totally not acceptable in Wikipedia. Earlier his such behaviors were watched and pointed by several admins too. He also creates articles by hearsay to denounce Korea such as Samurang which has been up for AFD. I believe his reappearance is just as same as the last case. Japanese editors are recently being blocked for their violation of policies, so try to remove their common enemy like me out of Wikipedia. They consult about how effectively to remove me like RFC or Arbcom files. They regard Wikipedia as places for their political propagandas or battlefield. Unlike Nanshu's accusation of "useless harmful editor", during their absent time, I've created or edited many "useful articles", so got more than 10 DYKs. Therefore, I believe their disruptive behaviors make editors unable to article in a peaceful and constructive way.

Moreover, they said they would move their forum to other places, but still retain the bashing forum within 2channel. According to their page, their meatpuppetry plots are evident. They still stalk me and other editors and record every move related to Korean history or Japanese, Chinese history. You can find my name mentioned there so many times, including even today and yesterday's my activities[30][31]2channel meatpuppeting 1

Japan-Korea related articles are really necessary to being brought from more adminins' attentions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also implemented Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two reliable sources (Korean encyclopedia) yesterday. However, today, he continues his habitual false accusation against me like vandalism again.[32] Even if I would want to agree with his biased edit, that would mean I conducted vandalism which is totally false and unwarranted. Nanshu should apologize his disruptive behaviors to me. He removed not only two respectable sources, but also insists that his original research version is valid.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles I've created?

Resolved

Quick question: is there a simple way of compiling a list of all the articles I've created? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the future, questions like these should be directed to the help desk, which specializes in answering Wikipedia-related questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary broken ?

Hi. Could someone please review this : WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Copying_to_Wiktionary and see if something is actually broken, or if we're just confused....or both :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged the bot operator at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie#w:User:CopyToWiktionaryBot (spiffy link). So, we'll get somewhere on it as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is removing CSD tags vandalism?

I'm completley uninvolved, but I'm just asking the question because I can see myself doing the same thing and I want to get a good answer so I know what to do in the future. I have AIV on my watchlist and I noticed [[33]] where User:Fieldday-sunday reported another editor, User:Sdav, for removing {{db-bio}} tags from a page. User:Sdav removed the tag from an article 4 times, User:Fieldday-sunday kept reverting, and User:Fieldday-sunday's Huggle finally reported User:Sdav to AIV. User:PeterSymonds removed the vandalism report with an edit summary "please stop. this is not blatant vandalism." [34]

Disregarding the fact that CSD was eventually declined by another admin, is removing CSD tags without comment, by the article creator, sufficient for a report to AIV? After all, the CSD tags state very clearly that the tag should not be removed by article creators, which User:Sdav did several times. If an article creator keeps removing the CSD tag, doesn't that force the issue to AfD (assuming an editor who removes CSD tags will also remove PROD tags)? Doesn't this just reward editors for removing the tags, since a trip to AfD means the original article gets to stay up for 5 more days?

I would appreciate thoughts from other Admins both to probe the question, and to make sure I personally do the "right thing" when I run into this situation. Thanks. Livitup (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think when the author removes the tag it's vandalism, 'cuz it tells them they're not supposed to. When anyone else does it isn't, though. So, if the tag does actually apply, readd it and put a {{uw-speedy1}} (or higher) on the author's talk page. If they continuously ignore this, they should be blocked for it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only caveat I'd note is that the author is often not aware that removing the CSD tag on an article they wrote is technically vandalism, especially if they're new. So I'll usually give a mulligan for the first removal - "Hey, you can't remove that, use {{hangon}} instead, or explain why the article doesn't meet the criteria, etc..." or some such. If they pull it again, that's vandalism, and so on. WP:BITE should be minded, obviously, but only to a point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easiest to refer to the requirements for something to be WP:vandalism: is there a deliberate attempt to compromise (for which read: make worse) the encyclopedia? Clearly not in a good-faith removal of a CSD tag, even by the author. Not following instructions is not usually a wilful attempt to harm the project; assuming even that the small-type instruction got read at all in the mass of material and jargon now in CSD tags. So, tell them as UltraExactZZ says, to please not remove the tag anymore, and use hangon instead, etc. If they persist, then they can be blocked for repeatedly removing CSD tags despite being asked not to (i.e. for disrupting the CSD process). But not for vandalism, even so. However, it may be better to take the lower-impact approach and simply stick the article on AfD as that ends the issue. AfD is not a "reward", by any stretch, and sending someone's article there when they repeatedly object to other methods of deletion is usually just being reasonable to them as another human person — something which just might make them feel a bit better about their otherwise rather spiky intro to Wikipedia. (Of course, if the article itself is vandalism, then this is all rather obviously different). Splash - tk 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing CSD tags repeatedly is edit warring, not vandalism. Try not to WP:BITE. Splash's advice is also sound. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a coincidence or dissociative identity disorder

User:Viriditas brought me an interesting problem that has completely stumped me, so I wanted to get some outside opinions on how best to handle this (or if it needs handling at all). Basically, it seems likely that a minor sock farm has grown up around Talk:Father Damien, but rather than use the multiple accounts to push a POV/attack editors/stack deletion discussions/evade blocks/do all that other socky stuff that sockpuppets do, the farm appears to be arguing with itself. Extensively.

Viriditas' original post is here, and my attempt at a response is here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's simply a group of new editors with similar interests engaging in some intellectual discussion, but looking through their contributions I just can't help but feel that something is a little bit off. --jonny-m t 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the signal to noise ratio is disruption in and of itself. –xeno (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Without looking in depth) If all they're doing is using the talk page, I'd ignore them until they get bored. Not doing any harm. —Giggy 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-related articles under article probation

Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Although this remedy should assist in taking effective action, whenever needed, it will still require uninvolved sysops to enforce them.

Individual uninvolved administrators are requested to intervene accordingly if and whenever concerns/issues are raised in relation to this area of editing (or certain users editing in this area). It is my understanding that this request has been echoed by several involved parties in this area, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee (in response to the recently rejected request for arbitration on this area). Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards