Wikipedia:AN

Article in other languages:

• ويكيبيديا:إخطار_الإداريين
• Wikipedie:Nástěnka_správců
• Βικιπαίδεια:Σημειωματάριο_διαχειριστών
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard
• Wikipédia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs
• Wikipédia:Adminisztrátorok_üzenőfala
• Wikipedia:管理者伝言板
• Wikipedia:Administratorer/Notisblokk
• Википедия:Форум_администраторов
• Wikipédia:Nástenka_správcov
• Википедија:Администраторска_табла
• วิกิพีเดีย:แจ้งผู้ดูแลระบบ
• Wikipedia:Tin_nhắn_cho_bảo_quản_viên

Incivility blocks

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks.

BLP RfC Closer Needed

The Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is due to pause later today (at 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)), and is need of an admin willing to take on the hefty task of summarizing and sorting the proposals enumerated there. Since this is now weighing in at 109 threads, I imagine this might take a bit of time, so I wanted to thank in advance the admin wiling to take on the task of bringing some order to this discussion. -- ^(talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin, at that. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have those? Be aware that whoever steps up, and whatever they do, someone somewhere is going to not like it. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar is right that some people won't be happy, but probably a lot more will be (and thankful—that the "summarizing admin" actually read through it all). Furthermore it's not really that hard to sort and summarize the various proposals and points of view in a manner that most reasonable people will find objective. There are a few viewpoints (from both "sides" of the debate) which have floated to the top of discussion in terms of support level. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone actually been found to do this? Is User:Sam still active - if so, he'd do a good job. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to be stepping forward (probably for a couple of reasons: 1) It would take while; 2) Half the people on earth have commented in the RfC, including a lot of active admins). I don't know User:Sam but he did make some edits a few days ago, and does not seem to have participated in the recent BLP discussions. If no one else is able to work on this, it might be worthwhile for Fritzpoll or someone else to drop a note on Sam's page and see if he'd oblige the community (big time) by taking care of a summary. Another option would be to get a couple of "involved" admins (but on different sides of the debate) to summarize it jointly. As I said above the summarizing should not really be too hard so maybe some editors who already commented could take care of it. Regardless we don't want it just sitting there on pause for days, and indeed it's pretty important to narrow and then continue the discussion so we can come to some sort of consensus in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now been three days since the RfC was "paused" and two since my preceding comment. We really need someone to step in and summarize, and that does not seem to be happening. If there is no one uninvolved who is able and willing to do so, we need to figure out a way for someone (or a couple of someones) who have commented to do the summarizing. I thought Risker did a good job with an interim summary here, so maybe she would be willing to do so again, though as a member of ArbCom she's not entirely uninvolved. Regardless the fact is that this is not one of the those discussions we can just let languish and die off with nothing coming of it. If we don't end up coming to some sort of generally agreed upon conclusion/solution, the whole hellstorm of chaos and angst that preceded the opening of the RfC will likely start up again. Three days is too long for nothing to be happening, and we need to move the discussion forward pronto before we lose what had been a significant amount of momentum. Suggestions, volunteers? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: if no-one comes forward (and people who aren't involved yet interested enough to do it will be hard to find), then ask Arbcom to do it. One of them can write a summary, the others can check/edit it so there's a collaborative element. We elect them for when the community can't decide by itself; this is not an ideal solution (what is?) but it's miles better than nothing. Rd232 ^talk 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To keep things moving why don't we have 2 admins with roughly opposing views do the summary, and then find a real uninvolved admin to certify it. You and I for instance. Kevin (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That could work, and even an involved admin kicking things off with a neutralish summary would help keep things moving (and just possibly could the summary be collaboratively edited by people sharing those views). There is already Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II to build on. However the most important thing is not so much simple summary, as a merging of different, overlapping proposals of similar types into a "broad outline" Idea X / Y etc. For instance, my "BLP incubation" idea and Jehochman's proposal are similar enough to merge. It needs to end up with a relatively small number of ideas ( < 5 if they're direct competitors; <10 if some can supplement each other) to stay manageable. After input on the "broad outline" ideas, it will hopefully be clear which of the ideas (maybe more than one if they supplement each other) should be taken forward (probably on its own "draft process" page to hash out details, which will hopefully be relatively quick).

Some plausible "broad outline" ideas: 1. PROD-based variations ("BLP incubation"; Jehochman; David Gerard; NJA; Themfromspace) 2. Cleanup-but-not-deletion (Jclemens; OrangeDog; Power.corrupts; Collect; DGG) 3. deletion-based-on-age (Jimbo Wales) 4. new process/restrictions specifically for new BLPs (Pointillist).

I hope this helps, but I can't do any more at this point - doing this properly will take hours I don't currently have. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Still think asking Arbcom is the most plausible - Risker was mentioned. If she could draft, Arbcom could review the draft - that ought to be neutral enough, and if it isn't people will say so. Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I will do it. Please note that it isn't really an "Arbcom" closure—I will be standing behind my own words here—but I have given a quick read-through to what is needed here, and it's pretty clear that the objective is to help this through to the next phase, not to bring the matter to a final resolution. This will take at least the rest of the evening, and I may not be finished until tomorrow, because I really do want to read it from beginning to end so as not to miss some of the fine points raised by various comments. Risker (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block (part two)

Resolved: Notice to contact the info @en wiki team left at IP talk page Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is again evading his block and again issuing legal threats.[1] Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no legal threats. Block evasion is another matter. SGGH ^ping! 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I interpret "If you will delete this material, it will remove all threat of litigation against Wikipedia" as a legal threat. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He warns about possible legal action because of talk page posts which he considers defamatory and/or libelous. He is not saying he will take any legal action himself, but merely states that in accordance to policy, we should remove these posts. Using legal terms does not equal issuing legal threats.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Post reverted and ip blocked, the comment quoted by 212.139 being sufficient under the "chilling effect" aspect to make the post a threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's too much of a taboo on using any kind of legal terms on Wikipedia these days, although I agree this could be considered a perceived legal threat.--Atlan (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I perceived no threat in that post. And I do indeed believe that the blocked user has a) been harshly dealt with by Wikipedia and b) has indeed been harassed and defamed on Wikipedia by another user, who is persistently evading block to do so. Our policies are being gamed and Blackjack's requests should be looked at carefully. I just wish I had the time. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Has BlackJack been directed to the office, where such matters can be dealt with? I shall take a look, and drop them an email if not - but they are only disrupting at best, and chilling the desire of other editors to contribute at worst, if they think posting comment that speaks of the (supposed effect of) legal consequences of wishes being complied with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see email is not available - perhaps the suggestion could be made to the next sock that appears? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone block the other two self-admitted socks The bowling of a ghost and Bart Maverick? He also appears to have used an IP to vandalize the userpages of his various socks and Puppetmaster acount to remove the templates. That is also block evasion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've filed an SPI since it looks like there's another BlackJack sockpuppet active [2]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New sock has been blocked and tagged. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a notice to contact the information team on the IPs talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If Community De-Adminship existed, would this affect your administrator behavior?

I'm not looking to start a debate on the validity of Community De-Adminship (CDA) in general. Please, if you would, restrict your comments to answering the following specific question;

Before answering this question, please read and understand the CDA process being proposed.

Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the appropriate place for discussions like this, you should post it on the village pump-- 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The edit notice on this page says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Seems it is the right place? I'm trying to ask a question of administrators in general. There is no specific portion of Village Pump dedicated just to administrators. You could say it's more appropriate at proposals or policy, but I'm not here to garner input on the proposal or the policy. I'm here to gain input on how it would affect administrator behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should wait until CDA is prepared & presented to the community, before getting administrators opinons on it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • If you'd like to discuss the merits of how this process should be developed, feel free to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship. I don't think this is the appropriate place for that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It's your choice, I was merely making a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• At first I was going to say that I hope it would affect adminstrators' behavior, but then after further consideration, I would hope, rather, that they were already behaving as if such a thing were in place. So I guess that means I hope it would NOT affect their behavior. And really, if you weren't behaving like that in the first place, well, I hope you get CDA'd. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Obviously not an administrator but I'll say my piece: If it would change the way you acted as a sysop you shouldn't be an sysop. :) (|) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The point has been made elsewhere in more detail, summarise as: if anyone - including criminals, who'd have by far the most motivation to vote - could vote on whether a cop should lose his badge, how do you think that would go? Rd232 ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But you think "we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests"!! Don't you realise that people who want to see more admin accountability are not actually criminals? You are tarring a huge amount honest people, scare mongering over the amount of who are likely to be criminalistic, and failing to see that admin who avoid making difficult decisions that they would otherwise choose to make because a CDA against them is a possibility (even with the many safeguards in place) do not deserve to be admin. Adminship is a commitment to Wikipedia above yourself as an editor. If you don't have that you should NOT be an admin. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're the second person to abuse my metaphor, I'll point out that it was... just a metaphor. I'm not "tarring" anyone, the point is that there's a reason cops aren't elected, and the same logic applies to admins in respect of the cop-like duties of adminship; I'm sorry you don't see that rather obvious point (cf selection bias). In addition, and the reason I actually bothered engaging with this thread in the first place, was to make the point that whilst WP:RFA is predicated on editors promoted to admin being able to separate content editing from adminship, those admins which do not cease content editing and which engage in contentious content areas risk retaliation at CDA by editors who harbour content-related grudges. This is another reason why recall should not be based on a public vote (at least without a clear screening process by a trusted party, like Arbcom); it is generally subject to gaming. Finally, I seem to be the sole representative here of a widely-held view; visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall (see also discuss at CDA) and please cease your personal attacks. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept my comment may have been a misunderstanding of your metaphor (rather than "abuse" of it), but I fail to see it as a personal attack. I'm arguing the case as strongly as I can. I'm not sure I like seeing admin compared to cops. If an admin is put off from editing by the presense of CDA, then he is probably a better editor than an admin, and should return to being one. Admin who edit in certain areas should of course be careful. It is FAR worse that an admin abuses that position, than an innocent admin has to suffer a CDA for being accused of doing so (a FAR FAR less likely thing to happen). The innocent admin would hardly be desysopped at the CDA.

Admin clearly have too many powers, which should spread across different jobs. But that hardly effect CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • It is of course a risk, and the most legitimate reason against the idea in my opinion but I still stand by my statement. If being the cop is so important to you that you would change how you act because you are worried about retaliation then you never deserved the position anyway. I would say that in general (especially with the amazingly high percentages required to desysop in the current proposal) it is highly unlikely you would get enough people to vote against you for removal unless you probably could have gone to arbcom and lost it there anyway. If you do regardless? It is a risk, but if you are going to go against what you think is best for the community because you want to keep the position? Sorry you wouldn't have my sympathy. (|) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Adminship is a volunteer position with many duties; very many of the active admins already shy away from the really hard drama-heavy "cop" duties (as opposed to more mop-type). CDA will make that worse. You can impugn the motivation of the volunteers doing it (cops at least get paid...), but what matters is the end result, which is not hard to predict Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Most admin do not seem that shy to me, but there are all different types of admin. Some do not want to get into unpleasant fights, and why should they when there are plenty of others who are happy to step in. Yes - Wikipedia does need more admin (or workers of different types in my opinion - the "administrator" position involves far too much for one individual, both in work load and providing abusable powers), and I think that CDA will make the administrator post something that more people can justify being involved in. Some people simply need to see more accountability, Wikipedia being a "democracy" or not (it's as democratic as anything else in the world - ie semi-democratic). It's an ethical matter to some of us.

If CDA makes WP:RfA slightly less of an embarrassingly deep-fried experience, that would be a good thing too. I worry sometimes exactly why some people would put themselves through all that. Is it always just for the mop? RfA should be more streamlined as a process anyway - it's too heavily reliant on a balanced group of people contributing. Even with CDA, many admin will get away with all kinds of pov enforcing, power tripping and bullying etc. CDA is more about what it represents, than it's actual use - which with all the safeguards in place will be fairly minimal I think anyway. It could be used a little bit perhaps, and then fall off. It might highlight a few issues, which when solved are then gone. It's message of accountability could actually sink in. We'll have to (hopefully) see. I think just having a decent CDA process will automatically make admin behave a little more thoughtfully, and editors a little less cynically. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you honestly saying that admins shouldn't be accountable simply because 'criminals' may be able to vote on their fate? Or since we're volunteers, our activities are somehow not open to community scrutiny and sanction? If you read the process as drafted, you'd realise that dispute resolution must have been attempted with the admin and failed, and further that 10 editors with 500 edits and at least 3 months activity are needed to even get the nomination to the point of polling. Even then, the poll is open to the entire community (admins included), and the closure is under the discretion of the 'crat. If we lose a few admins because they don't want their behaviour scrutinised should they act foolish, then good riddance. NJA (t/c) 09:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No NJA, I'm not saying that (thanks for the facetiousness - helpful). There are already processes that hold admins accountable, and lead to desysopping if required. And any addition to such processes deemed necessary by the community need not involve such unnecessary additional bureaucracy, or such potential for gaming. These were points abundantly made clear, by many people, in the Admin Recall RFC which preceded the current CDA RFC (somehow all the options and discussion disappeared down the drain; the Admin Recall RFC clearly needed a Part II after sorting through and merging proposals). Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people have who made it abundantly clear that the current system is not enough. The status quo does not have an element of superiority for being so. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. People against this CDA proposal can argue their case, but they have to listen to others too. I've personally had had my ears bashed by critics of CDA continually claiming that they are not being listened to, while I and others are patiently doing just that. The reality is that they are being listened to; they are just not being agreed with. Their arguments are always subjective and theoretical. So are the CDA arguments? Then let's vote at the RFC on whether try it out, and see what happens if people have said they would like it.

To propose an Admin Recall proposal at RFC (which turned out to be CDA) is the result of a snowball that could not have been stopped. It probably could have done with taking more time in stages - but too few people stood in it's way with good enough arguments for doing so. It needed that to slow down - but the fact is that most people simply let it roll. It may not have been a totally smooth journey, but how can things every really be that smooth on Wikipedia? The encyclopedia that everyone can edit? Some people did try to stop it, but it had too much momentum. Se la vie. The CDA proposal is still being worked on, and people can edit it directly there, or contribure here at the meta-detail Talk page, and here at the general Talk page, or they can simply vote for or against it in the upcoming RFC. In fact, people can do what they want - within the rules. Just don't expect to 'blow up' a snowball that is clearly of everyone's making. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Would you please propose something already? These endless and pointless discussions need to stop. Any administrator who is opposed by 70 - 80 percent of the community will already have been taken to WP:RFC and then desysopped by our elected representative on the Arbitration Committee. To me, it seems like a useless and pointless bureaucracy to create a redundant pathway that will never do anything other than foment drama and waste editors' time. Any time a little cabal of ten editors with a common interest gets together, they will go after an admin they don't like, creating much grief and drama, but nothing whatsoever of value. I think that gaming the rules should not be encouraged, and am confident that my view is typical of many editors here. It is very likely that any such proposal will be strongly rejected. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But really, who is this "you"? CDA is been worked on by a number of people (who are not a 'close gang'), and it can only be proposed when there is a general consensus (from as many people as possible) that it is ready. CDA clearly has to be a professional looking proposal, that cannot be easily picked apart for its holes; a proposal that is actually attractive to the voter. You keep saying we should just get the idea out, and not bother with the technical details - but you know that there are a number of people waiting to castigate anything that is presented that way. It is not beneficial to the proposal to give people silly reasons to 'oppose'. If CDA opponents have theoretical concerns that it will work badly, and they are not even willing to trial it, they should be forced to admit that. Why give the more cynical people places to hide?

There are only benefits in bringing a finished article (as much as these things ever are) to the final community vote. Even if CDA fails, it will only be a useful experience to us if it was proposed as professionally as possible. It can either have been a clear experience we all can learn things from, or a muddied mess that some people will happily archive as a "waste of time". Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The product is not getting better with discussion. You're just making people more and more opposed to it by engaging in endless votes and processes. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-focus to answer the question

I really, really, really didn't want to get into a debate on the merits of CDA. That was the exact antithesis of my point in raising the question I originally posted. So, I'm going to start again. PLEASE do not debate the merits of CDA here. Focus your answers on the question at hand, and please if administrators only would answer this question:

Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

note: (admins who previously answered have had their answers copied down here)

• An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Answer: Not currently, because the way I use my admin tools is generally pretty clear cut. (I work copyright problems, 24/7. Not literally. But close enough to literally to be a bit pathetic. :)) I am confident in my understanding of related policy and in my methods of enforcing it. I can imagine it might keep me from deciding to wade in to help clean up controversial areas involving many contributors, however — say, addressing a secret cabal composed of a number of long-standing contributors. Even if trusting the overall good sense of the community, I can do without the excitement. But that's one reason why I'd probably not decide to wade in to those areas in the first place. I prefer soul-crushing tedium. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• RFA is an utter mess. CDA is a way to make the messy drama of RFA a semi-permanent condition for all admins who attempt to solve difficult problems. No thanks. ArbCom, with all it's flaws, is a lot less gameable. The proposal stinks and is getting stinkier. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No. I'm open to recall on the reasoning that the community needs more of a recourse than the lenghty RFC->ArbCom process, and I strive to ensure that my administrative actions stand up to scrutiny. As for the fears about gaming the system, I'm quite confident that even admins working on difficult blocks or WP:AE will have enough people to stand up for them if they ever were to be subject to any for of community deadminship. What a CDA would help with is to ensure that the bad apples can be removed in less than the month+ process it takes now. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's smug to say that something will be no problem for somebody else who does a tough job that you don't do yourself. Getting put in the stocks so people can toss accusations for a week or two is stressful, even when one is completely vindicated at the end of the process. No thanks. The proposal is a naive idea put forward by people who aren't listening to concerns of those affected by the proposal. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• And what of the many admin who back CDA? It simply has to be trialled. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman:How is CDA is any different than RFC in this regard. Sole Soul (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC requires two editors make prior, good faith attempts at dispute resolution, and an uninvolved administrator needs to certify that those attempts were made. While RFC is gamed once in a while (for which we customarily award cupcakes to the subject), it has generally stood the test of time. Can such protections be built into CDA? Can the requirements be lowered so that CDA actually has some teeth? These are the changes I'd like to see. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking what color should we paint the bikeshed invites the question do we even need a bikeshed? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Falsely claiming that the proposers aren't listening does not help your cause; the question at the top specifically invites input from those affected by this proposal to articulate how, why, and to what extent they are affected by this proposal. Perhaps this proposal means that some will need to improve their act so as to avoid further controversy (and do their work properly). Regardless, we cannot forget that there wouldn't be so much interest in a proposal like this, if there wasn't a noticeable concern about the number of "bad apples" being discovered, old or new, and the (time-consuming) manner in which they are dealt with. Note: I'm not saying the proposal itself is without flaws. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ncmvocalist, the proposers are not listening. I've voiced my concerns repeatedly and they have just ignored them. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how unwanted answers can be described as 'deaf ears'. You should respect more the dialogue you have always had. Not listening and disagreeing are too different things.Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you will not allege that Hammersoft, I, or anyone else is overdominating this discussion because of legitimate attempts to keep this discussion focussed on the specific input that was needed from this discussion; you will have plenty of opportunity (and even invitation) to restate other concerns at a separate discussion in the near future. I'm sure you have many concerns, and some may appear unaddressed - I'll definitely try to highlight them. But in this discussion, at this time, could you articulate (or restate) your concerns which specifically relate to how (and to what extent) this proposal would affect your performance of admin duties, if it was enacted? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you ask? Jafeluv (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think it is important to understand what impact CDA might have on the project were it implemented. One of the ways in which it might have an impact is administrator behavior. I'm not seeking answers condemning or supporting CDA, but answers that are self evaluative from administrators regarding how CDA may or may not impact their administrator actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I would not anticipate CDA having any impact on me as an admin. The reason is because 98% or more of my admin actions are processing requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Since the vast majority of my admin edits are not in controversy-causing areas in the project, CDA and I may never cross paths. Other than the odd serial sockmaster, I really cannot imagine someone getting angry with me as an administrator (well, except maybe those seeing out-of-process blocks and page protections whom I have declined). — Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, none whatsoever. As proposed, a CFA nomination wouldn't even be a possibility unless I've acted foolish on several occasions (it's not for one-offs, unless extremely serious), and only then after some sort of legitimate dispute resolution had been tried with me and to failed to produce an amicable outcome, and even then it would take 10 editors with 500 edits and 3 months registration just to get it to a poll, where then it would need 50+ !votes and a strong consensus of the editing community. Therefore it would not affect my daily duties, and I can't see how it would affect any good admin, as you'd have to be a complete knob head if you cannot come to some kind of satisfactory compromise during legitimate dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also since there seems to be a line drawn between 'safe' and risky admin duties, I wanted to note that believe I do quite variety of admin tasks, including 3RR blocks, sock clerking and blocks, username vios, deletions, block reviews, etc. I've been accused of admin abuse, and have been told that they will file complaints against me, etc. Even still, the knowledge that a community based mechanism (as currently worded in the draft) to nominate me for a de-sysop poll would not affect my activities, as again I think you'd have to be very thick headed to not resolve it during dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's say you piss off a cabal of pro-Elbonian editors by blocking one of their leaders who's violated arbitration sanctions. The cabal members sheik "adminabuse" and nominate you for CDA. The process runs for a week or two, and various past people you've blocked come forward and toss mud at you. Even if the process fails to remove your access, is this the way you want to spend your time on Wikipedia? The problem here is that there is no protection against abuse, unlike WP:RFC and WP:RFAR. Please address this point. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the draft of the proposed policy, as that scenario is not a possibility. NJA (t/c) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is why I suggested that Hammersoft not ask his question about the CDA stuff, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [3]

• No. Similar to Moonriddengirl and Kralizec!, I generally limit myself to blocking vandals and deleting crap out of preference, and don't get involved in Arbcom/political/religious/ethno/nationalist/US political/Eastern European/Israeli/pseudo-scientific/Global warming/filmplot/etc -type disputes. I applaud admins who take on those tasks and wouldn't want to see them disadvantaged or deterred. However I would hope that anyone involved in those areas could maintain at least 50% support across the whole community. One thing I would like to see is the 10 editor nomination requirement increased for such admins because it's easy to piss off cabals of that size. It seems a lot of people are actually aware of what goes on at RfA, and where a good candidate is suffering a cabal onslaught, suddenly hundreds of independent others will appear out of nowhere to deliver the right result. I expect a similar phenomena at CDA. But lets not waste all that time unnecessarily. (This is not necessarily an endorsement) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No I rather think the policy has its process conditions so limiting that it will accomplish nothing at all, good or bad. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• No as I am already recallable. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Lar, your criteria are Byzantine and unsatisfiable as a practical matter. Jehochman ^Brrr 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Admin should have nothing to fear of CDA, and I think the above shows this. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Disagree. Address concerns rather than pooh poohing them. How does this proposal prevent gaming? How does it reduce rather than foment drama? Jehochman ^Brrr 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, repeatedly asking the same questions wherever you can (having had responses every time - despite your claims of being ignored) is really pusing AGF now. You are dictating what people can say, and forcing people to repeat responses by copying the answers that you were happy with into a new section. This is just not on, and I really feel you are wasting people's time now. I wasn't bothered with you posting here, it's just the way you go about it - it's not right. You are consistently trying to make it look like you have more support than you do, but bundling people's previous comments together isn't going to impress anyone but the laziest of busy people.

Nobody can stop CDA now just because you (or anyone else) theorises that X,Y,Z disasters will happen. You simply do not know what will happen, and your demand for proof that CDA will be a guaranteed success is unfair and unworkable. CDA doesn't have to proven to be better than other system either. It doesn't have to fix a gaping hole, or compete with anything. If any admin in here admit to you that a CDA process would make them even more afraid of making "difficult decisions", then should they really be those kind of admin in the first place? Perhaps they should focus on the other types of adminsterative jobs.

Comment: The majority of editors actually respect tough/brave admin who make hard decisions (it's hypocracy or breaking the rules that tends to bug most editors), and they would support them before 10 committed angry editors can realistically start up a de-adminship process. There are plenty of safeguards surrounding CDA, so the vast majority of our 'braver' admin will have nothing to fear - unless they consistently go OTT on a very dodgy matter without heeding at all what a number of editors think. Angry editors have to go through the various forms of dispute resolution first - they can't just run to CDA frothing at the mouths. After all of that, an admin may (just may) have people soberly looking at a CDA. But the chances are that any reasonable admin would have started listening first. A resolution before CDA even happens (what CDA is really about imo). Most cases of admin gone completely 'mad' will be dealt with by other admin via the other channels. We will all be voting on whether to give CDA a try (it surely can't be stopped now), so I suggest we focus on the process itself, or wait for the RFC vote. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect my admin behavior, because I'm already subject to recall (and have gone through the process once). As pointed out above, if CDA would affect your behavior, then you're probably not qualified for adminship anyway. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• No. For one I have a recall process and it's rather more strict than the CDA proposal, as all one has to do is start a standard RFC, and if enough people (doesn't even have to be half of those who comment) have a problem with my admin work I resign the tools. Just for the record, as it were, I don't have a problem with the current CDA proposal really, and if anything I think the "anything less than 65% opposition means they keep the bit" aspect is far too lenient (if just under two-thirds of the community thinks you're doing a bad job you should lose the tools, and indeed you should have enough clue to resign them yourself). I hear the concerns about admins working in controversial areas, but if a cabal of nationalist editors was going after an admin doing good work (or at least trying to) in their topic area, I think that would be incredibly transparent, and if anything a classic WP:PLAXICO moment where the CDA "nominators" end up catching heat rather than the admin (who would probably end up getting plaudits). There could be something I'm missing, but I just don't see a scenario whereby admins doing basically good work would get railroaded by a process like this, so I would think most would feel as I do that they would not need to change what they do as an admin. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

BAG membership request

I have been nominated for Bot Approvals Group membership by MBisanz, and I am posting a notification here as encouraged by the bot policy. If you have time, please comment at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/The Earwig. Thanks, — The Earwig @ 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin Assistance: Need to modify template {{WPMED}}

Resolved: No admin needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- I have just created a new page for the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology Task Force. One of the last steps I've got remaining for setup is modifying the {{WPMED}} template to include two new parameters -- "toxicology" (yes/no) and "toxicology-imp" (standard importance options) -- and add documentation for them to both Template:WPMED/doc and WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force parameters ... Would someone with admin privileges mind taking care of this for me? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might need some technical assistance, but it's not admin assistance you need because that template is only semi-protected. If you want some help, please post on Template talk:WPMED with some specifics. I've got it on my watchlist. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin -- I thought I needed an admin, because that's what the task force setup instructions said for Wikiproject Medicine -- but I've got it taken care of now. I'll fix the instructions as well. Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for the help. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Something not right

Resolved: Cache Rules Everything Around Me ( BWilkins ) 13:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read over Wikipedia:Drv#Human_Instrumentality_Project, I concurred with restoring the history of the page. I was then going to re-introduce the redirect, and then protect from editing by all but admins. I carefully and clearly followed the steps, but the history of the article still does not seem to appear ... what did I miss? ( BWilkins ) 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Can you see this diff [4]? If so, it's probably just database slowness. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that ... but I must have some caching things going on. Let me see if I can fix. ( BWilkins ) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

6 minutes of cache clearing later ... all's cool. Cheers. ( BWilkins ) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing a link on a protected template - help please

Resolved: I have put live the sandbox version which looks like a simple change. Keith D (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone edit the fully-protected Template:Infobox UK place to fix a link to a disambiguation page? At the moment it links to Douglas, and it should link to Douglas, Isle of Man. The link is under the "city distances section". Thankyou. --BelovedFreak 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox to fix this and two other minor bugs. I'm not an admin but just add {{editprotected}} to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Link to disambiguation page if/when everyone is satisfied with the proposed amendments, then an admin will know to check the proposed change and implement it. — Richardguk (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPR story: "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?"

Resolved: Keep your pants on, no fire here. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Provocative promotional noise title (as usual) ... Actual title on site: "Can Wikipedia Keep Growing?" (listen) ... Yet another interview with Evgeny Morozov -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Wednesday's Here and Now program on National Public Radio in the United States is headlining a story titled "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?" While I am not saying that it will cause a wave of new editors to come and 'fix' Wikipedia articles Colbert-style, we should probably keep an eye out nonetheless. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(different programming schedules?)

I see that topic title listed on the Michigan Radio NPR schedule (which also mentions Teaparty event in Nashville which starts tomorrow) ... but not mentioned on Here and Now site. In fact, there is no correlation between the two schedules. Hmmmm. (I have no clue. Do you?) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some clue of what their specific concerns are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How odd ... my interest was piqued because of an advert I heard for the story during Morning Edition on my local station here in Ohio. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio schedule bumfuzzlement by the vast left-wing conspiracy!?! ... Out-of-work pranksters from Air America? :-) Of course we liberals don't listen to radio anyway — we've got French virtual theory lectures on our Ipods. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After contacting the show, one of their producers said the Wikipedia story had to be bumped due to breaking news, but it may air tomorrow. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• We will likely need to look after the britches article, since it is an arcane word only now used in a rather old fashioned metaphor... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, the younger generations will likely think it is a misspelling ... with an extraneous "r" :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Well, the anatomical causes for becoming too big for one's britches are mostly protected anyway, I assume. -- |  21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the Hear and Now website has details about what the story is:

"Can Wikipedia Keep Growing?

"It’s one of the most successful experiments on the web. There are now Wikipedias in about 250 languages, while the English version has grown to 25 times the size of the the Encyclopedia Britannica. But articles are skewed toward popular culture and the growth of entries has slowed, amid controversies about the site’s rules. So how can Wikipedia keep growing? We speak with Evgeny Morozow, contributing editor to Foreign Policy Magazine, where he also runs the “Net Effect” blog."

And there's a link there to this page. One for the In the News fie, but not explicitly involving Admins I think. Tabercil (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The segment is up now, at http://www.hereandnow.org under the Feb. 4 entry. Rough Synposis: Wikipedia is mostly only as good as Google because it relies on Google primarily for sourcing. Then some crap about the Ayn Rand. We are "rolling out" something to protect BLPs from anonymous edits (o rly? when?). The inner core of "guardians" and "rules and bureaucracy" are discouraging more casual editors (and scientists, for example) who don't have time to engage in debates. Wikipedia wouldn't have been as successful as its been if it clamped down on who edited to begin with (as Larry Sanger's later project failed)--Milowent (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint re Administrator - SirFozzie

Resolved: IP blocked for a month. | 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recently had my talk page edited by this administrator [5] contrary to the rules.

I understand it is not appropriate for anyone and that includes administrators to edit a users talkpage in such a manner. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think so. You're clearly being disruptive, and Fozz was well within his bounds to make that edit to your talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain disruptive please? if you can! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DE and WP:POINT. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack, and an inflammatory series of statements attempting to rile up opponents. If the block evading user behind the IP thinks I was flippant, then I do apologize. However, the removal of their inflammatory statements was justified by Wikipedia's rules and policies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So you block my talk page because I retaliated to a personal attack on me by another troll editor? I think they call that biased editing! My statement was not inflammatory it was actual fact if you knew anything. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by block evading? I have never evaded any block. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can do something useful now and tell me how to raise this so-called dispute over the village of Eglinton's name? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Better not to feed here. 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why?? Are you embarrassed that all the other admin's will see it??? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh look!!! ..the troll's back to cause more trouble!! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean BigDunc? you're mistaken. BigDunc is not a troll. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe in refuting misinformation: [6]... (the SPI archive showing the evasion of a block). I will let someone else decide if the continued evasion and disruption needs to be handled by blocking the IP again (it appears to be remarkably static). SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't sign your name to that eh?? says it all! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't you create an account & sign in? It's not required, but it does help. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no.. one too many ~'s will do that to you. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No perfect place here at least Admins can see what you are doing now. 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to be assertively demanding to be blocked. I see that his request has been granted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

trying not to be a liar

Ok, I said early in the game of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12 that I wouldn't block User:Checker Fred and would only report my observations. Now I'm wishing I hadn't because I'm fairly certain I was right to suspect him. This is an issue I tried to back away from, and kind of got sucked back in by accident. If another uninvolved admin could just drop by and make a determination one way or the other I'd be more than happy to just be done with it. Thanks in advance, Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

It says Checker Fred is unrelated? – 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The CU says that, but if you look at the pattern of Sim12, they have used multiple ips in the past, and I found the wikistalk link that Tim Song provided very compelling. The case has just been archived without any further comment, and if nobody is willing to block I'll drop it and be done with Sim12. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

There is about a 10 day backlog at WP:TFD. I cannot close most of them due to either !voting or being the nom. I would be happy to assist with any cleanup, e.g., WP:TFD/H, after the TFDs are closed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for article: