Template:Active editnotice

The meaning of "indefinite" blocking is a perennial cause of confusion, between "indefinite=probably-but-you-never-know-permanent" (vandal account, indef ban, etc) and "indefinite=probably-temporary" (holding block to sort something out, etc). Wouldn't we make life easier for ourselves if we distinguished these at Special:Block? We could amend the "Expiry" list (requires a bug) and in the mean time use the "Other time" textbox. We'd just need to decide on what form of clarification to use. I'd suggest that "indefinite=probably-permanent" is the more common usage, which is a pity because changing indefinite=permanent to "infinite" would be one option. But I suggest we should invent some other term for "indefinite=temporary" and (a) start using it in the "other time" box and (b) ask for it to be added to the dropdown. The simplest and most transition-friendly I can come up with is simply "indefinite-temporary" (hyphenated), but perhaps someone can improve on that. Rd232 ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No need. No one is, in theory, "permanently" blocked from Wikipedia. There is almost always a route back to editing, it may take an extended time away, and some hoop-jumping-through on the part of the blocked person. However, I think that the number of honest-to-god-permanently-blocked-and-we-don't-ever-want-back-before-the-heat-death-of-the-universe users is actually vanishingly small. --Jayron32 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on, that's just terminological nitpicking and not addressing the main point. The distinction I've elaborated certainly exists, even if permanent-v-temporary oversimplifies it. Perhaps indefinite-longterm and indefinite-shortterm would be clearer. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the point Jayron is trying to make is that a distinction is inherently prejudicial as to which of the two categories a user is likely to fall into, when what we actually want to do is to illicit useful contributions from both groups? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I appreciate that sometimes the ambiguity is actually useful, but that suggests not getting rid of the ambiguous "indefinite" entry (which I hadn't suggested). We should at least be able to add indefinite-shortterm or something similar for use in cases where that is clearly the intention. It's not like we're going to force anyone to use block entries they don't want to. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I for one would like to have an 'until' parameter that would hold something more than a date, so that a user could be blocked 'indefinitely' - ie the circumstances in which xe might be unblocked are not apparent at the time of blocking, or 'until' - the issue regarding copyvios is resolved, they respond satisfactorily to these queries, etc. Although I can do that in the block template, so maybe its overcomplicating things. One thing that does annoy me is other editors insisting on blanking the userpage and sticking up an 'indefinitely blocked' template. We are supposed to have stopped doing that ages ago (as I do remind folks), and while its fine if 'indefinite' = exhausted the community's patience and ain't coming back for a long while, its unnecessary if I've blocked someone to stop them uploading any more copyvios. Perhaps the answer is if you had a category that was TEMPORARY, but without duration - although I see Jayron's point here also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some joker would put "hell freezes over" in that box. I think it is sufficient to put the "until" conditions on the user talk pages. This sort of thing probably requires more space than will fit comfortably in the block log. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. They would :( Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hell freezes over" was jokingly requested in 2006. See the talk page Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, isn't the "until" in both cases: When the user demonstrates that they know why they were blocked and are able to convince the blocking admin / community that they are willing and able to contribute positively and not repeat the action they were blocked for? Its just that for the 'probably-permanent' they have either committed a grievous transgression or displayed an ability to repeatedly tax the resources of the community, so the bar is that much higher. In both cases it is broadly 'until we believe they get it'.
• I think that "indefinite-short-term" will undermine the utility of the indefinite block. I say this as a editor that has previously been blocked indefinitely. un☯mi 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Modifying MediaWiki:Ipboptions doesn't require a bug. And this discussion fits at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions, where you'll see at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#sequence of options there's already been some discussion of "indefinite"-versus-"infinite". Notice the subtlety of there being a separate "display name" and string that's parsed for the actual time. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Indefinite means until we are convinced the block is no longer neccesarry. If the system is working properly, how long that is really depends more on the blocked user than the blocking administrator. Sometimes it can be very brief if they show an understanding of why they have been blocked and how to avoid it in the future. Other times they dig in their heels and refuse to admit to something that it is manifestly evident. It's not reasonable to expect admins to know in advance which will be the case, hence the indefinite block. If a user wants lawyer about what the word indefinite means they are probably not ready to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What about users such as Ecoleetage, blocked and banned for going after an on-wiki opponent in real life? In such cases, there's no way that the users can redeem themselves. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can give you the names of probably a half-dozen users who have been blocked longer than most of you have been contributing to Wikipedia. The hope is that someday even these editors could come back & make constructive edits, because of those idealistic words on the Front Page -- "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (emphasis mine); the reality is that these banned users aren't going to be allowed back here soon, if ever. They're not going to change. But our ideals insist that we hold out hope, & thus issue no (technically) permanent blocks. -- llywrch (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is quite wrong. Given enough determination and know-how, banned users easily evade any technical restriction we place, and they do that every single day. –MuZemike 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch was talking about the user being given permission to begin editing, not about ban-evaders. Apples and oranges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other wording that is possible includes "indeterminate" or "indefinite, block length to be determined" or "indefinite, block length under discussion", or "indefinite - user response required before unblocking". However, this may encourage a mentality of blocking to get people to respond. This is sometimes needed, but should only be used rarely, and in any case a warning that a block is about to be used should usually be made to get people to talk if they are being unresponsive and continuing to edit. Even simplest would be "blocked - block length under discussion". This would help in cases where someone is unblocked, in that any unblock note could say that discussion determined that the block was no longer needed. It could also be set up so that the admin gets a note when carrying out this sort of block, that the block will expire in a week unless further modified, which would put the onus on them to discuss the block and get a block length sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that some people flat-out refuse to communicate and continue to be disruptive until they get blocked. Then they start protesting said block. –MuZemike 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that indicative evidence that someone is a sock? HeyMid (contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After concerns raised here and elsewhere about Scientology-related BLPs being distorted by ideological editing, I started a short-term work-group to review related articles and to examine the extent of any problems. Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology. The idea was to get new eyes, without any history of Scientology related editing, to examine the articles - too many existing editors obviously had pro or anti Scientology agendas. The initiative was starting out well with a number of excellent participants. However, since then two things have happened.

Firstly, I've been attacked as a pro-Scientology editor off-site [1]. That's not a problem in itself, but it has brought SPAs into related debates - seeking to attack me and my initiative ion order to "preserve" articles they deem important to the cause. I think my track-record of being interested in BLP enforcement regardless of the ideology of the subject is good enough that experienced Wikipedians know where I'm really coming from.

Second User:Will Beback has strongly objected to any initiative outside of the existing Wikiproject, and has sought support from the Wikiproject Council for ending the independence of this short-term initiative. (Disclosure: Will and I have been in various disputes over what I see as his reckless attitude to BLPs.)

This isn't really the right venue for this - but it seemed wise to bring this to wider attention, and I was unsure where else. Should there be a rule against short-term BLP clean-up projects by people uninvolved in long-term wikiprojects? That seem to be the nub of it?--Scott Mac 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to protest Scott's baseless accusation that I have a reckless attitude towards BLPs. It's unproven and irrelevant, and appears to just be an ad hominem attack on another editor.

Scott created a quasi-project and insists that it may not be included in any existing projects, either Scientology or Biography. I'm happy to see broader participation in the discussion, but I urge Scott to avoid inflammatory language.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply noted our disagreement. As for the rest, I was simply trying to get people to improve articles and involve people not currently wishing to join a long-term Wikiproject. The are problems here that the Wikiproject has not been fixing. The categorisation bothers me less than the effectiveness of sorting problems - and a short-term drive outside of the wikiproject seemed to be working. Working is what matters.--Scott Mac 01:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have very valid argument on the issue at hand. Will made a WP:BOLD move and it was reverted thus has occurred the normal WP:BRD process. Will it was unnecessary to post at Project council, Scott is was inappropriate to accuse him of Canvassing. Go back to corners instead of Wasting every ones time here because neither of you are gonna back down from your positions nor do I see a chance reconciliation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me that from my past experience of both Scott and Will, what they need is to spend a few minutes chatting (probably privately) and working out how they can best collaborate to improve the encyclopaedia. I am solidly convinced that, whatever the merits of this particular dispute, both are on the side of the angels and should be able to sort this out like the mature individuals they are. I suggest that the admin noticeboard is too toxic an environment for this to happen peacefully and would urge them to take it to a pub, or email if they are too far apart geographically. Guy (Help!) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with JzG above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will and I have communicated extensively via e-mail. I'm not about to disclose the contents, but suffice to say it went nowhere. I'm not going to be unnecessarily rude about him, but I'm uninterested in Guy's Wikihugs at the expense of things that actually matter. I'm interested in ensuring Wikipedia minimised the chances of harming living people. Will's attitude to BLP is detrimental to that goal - and I can't with honestly try to call it any other way. He's now watching my every move, and challenging my every call, because whatever his agenda is he sees my BLP-focussed one as a problem. If Will's got angels on his side, I just hope I can recruit some even heavier hitters. --Scott Mac 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Will Beback has a legitimate concern that the purpose of the project may be unclear to people. Personally, I view it as more of a short-lived task force which will review Scientology-related articles to ensure that our policies and guidelines have been applied, particularly as regards WP:BLP, but my hope is that similar efforts will be undertaken in other topic areas that may be in the same situation with reference to WP:BLPCAT. I note that ArbCom suggest something very like this in their WP:ARBSCI findings:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Perhaps this project should be under the aegis of ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm No Arbcom recommended but to pretend we are Agents of Arbcom (though a kick ass name) would be silly as we have no such authority. Lets just let the WP:RM settle this and we can drop it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that all admins are responsible for helping enforce arb com rulings. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions/points

• 1) If this is short-term, how short is the term, one month, one year, 10 days? Now, even if a short-term project was envisioned (whatever that is), should it not have been proposed prior to its initiation? I think it should have been. Project guidelines exist to smooth the way and help potential participants build consensus before commencement. If it had proposed first, if the guidelines on projects had been followed, perhaps none of this would have happened since consensus about such a project would have been in evidence before commencement of it. If the editors involved in this, primarily McDonald and Resident Anthropologist, are so concerned about following Wikipeida's rules and guidelines why not use those which apply to creation of any Project? I think this "project" should be deleted and a new one proposed according to the standards set forth for "Projects."

• 2) Wikipedia suggests that editors write about what they know about. So, to call for uninformed editors to work on these articles seems very odd and kind of pointless. Scientology is a large, complex subject and a newbie editor might have to spend years just coming up to speed on the basics before making useful contributions to this set of articles.

• 3) If this project was to focus on Living Persons then why does the project page call into question every single article in the Scientology template? Many of these articles have nothing to do with living persons or biographical material at all.

• 4) If someone has concerns about biographical articles about non-notable persons, there are certainly many better candidates for deletion than the edit histories of McDonald show. I would recommend he put his time toward weeding out the worst of the worst. Stubs about even somewhat notable persons in the Scientology universe seem oddly singled out here which is why, I think, his own objectivity and neutrality has been called into question.

There are other substantive issues with this "project" and how it has been started and managed. I'll leave those out for now. I find this Project to be redundant and pointless. The primary wikipedia articles on this subject happen to be some of best articles in the public sphere on the subject and consistently rank at the top of common internet searches for information about Scientology. The extensive arbitration about editing Scientology articles resulted in a rather strong consensus about how to proceed with any further articles or editing. This Project seems to threaten that consensus and will thus make a difficult subject needlessly more difficult for anyone interested in editing within this body of articles. I would, therefore, as mentioned above, propose that this Project be deleted and a new one proposed according to the very good guidelines regarding projects. Calicocat (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what consensus you speak of, A review of Scientology content was encouraged at WP:ARBSCI#Review of articles urged. IT has taken a year and half for any one to make such a cleanup/review to start. WP:BOLD encourages such initiatives as this. Your charge of Uniformed editors being dretimental to such a clean-up is unfounded. Editors with no strong opinions either way are preferred as they are more likely to focus on Content and not their own prejudice ( whether pro or Anti CoS). Please stop assuming bad faith and casting questioning motives of me and Scott itt is this type of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that WP:ARCSCI attempted to put an end to. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the project seems to be that associating someone with Scientology is vaguely defamatory. Would a comparable "Neutrality in Catholicism" short-term project involve deleting references to Catholicism from bios with inadequate sources, and AFDing articles about people notable solely for their association with that church. More broadly, I think that creating ad hoc, POV-based quasi-projects on contentious topics is a poor precedent. "Neutrality in Eastern Europe"? "Neutrality in Climate Change"?

As for questioning the motives of editors, I'd urge everyone involved to assume good faith. I'm sure we all are working to improve the project; the question is how to do so best.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this answers my questions. Being bold is fine at times, but does not demonstrate the best judgment for articles on this subject. How long is "short term?" Wikipedia does encourage people to edit on subjects they have knowledge of. I'm not assuming bad faith at all and I think you should refrain from making such charges. I'm not talking about "strong opinions" I'm referring to people who are informed. The project lists every article in the Scientology template, not just biographical articles. Why the focus on Scientology stubs at all? Calicocat (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, Catholicism is a whole different ball park entirely as there is little stigma in such a categorization. Associating some one with a deviant which many call a "cult" and one the most controversial and derisive one out there should be a concern to us with BLPs. We are going through these articles reviewing them and making condensing or AFDing them as necisicary. Several AFD have not gone as planned and have come as "keep" (or kept by default). Will may remind you that i agree with your suggestion of it being a task force of WP:SCN, I just dont feel as strongly about it either way. Frankly think this short term drive is doing no harm, I think people you two are hyping this into something its not. John Carter, Cirt, Coffeepusher, Jayen466 are mostly staying out of it. I am really the only person who has had much work in the topic area prior to this. I do not feel this invitation for previously uninvolved editors to look at it a topic area is bad idea. I would support such task similar projects in those areas you mentioned for previously uninvolved editors after such Arbcom cases. I answered your question above already Calicocat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also suggested putting it under the aegis of WP:WikiProject biography, but some editors don't find that acceptable either. ResidentAnthropologist, you've been involved in a variety of cult articles, so it isn't clear that you're "uninvolved" in that topic either. How long is this "short term" projected intended to last?   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some editors are being quite disagreeable about everything including compromises. I considered since WP:ARBSCI before my time here, I considered myself meeting the letter of the law. It occurred to me after writing my above statement that I might need to withdraw from it as I may not be as impratial nor as uninvolved as I would like to think myself as. You are correct in that Will. I have no idea how long it will take... i guess the old saying "as long as it takes." Personally I dont see it going much past January but who knows how long it could take. I dont want this to be a unwieldy faction any more than you do Will. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it "takes as long as it takes" then that is not "short term." Also, that phrase, "it takes as long as it takes" appears as a central bit of Scientology dogma for various questions regarding how long any particular step on the Scientology bridge takes. Frankly, I think this "Project" was ill conceived and should be scraped and deleted. It got off on the wrong foot by not following the guidelines for Projects in wikidpedia. It is overly board, as it names every article in the entire Scientology template and there are far more articles on wikipedia of far less notable people. Any editor who is so concerned about BLP issues might address those. As far as the arbitration on Scientology articles go, the finding states: "This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case." Calicocat (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calicocat, from my perspective, this is something that really shouldn't take very long, because most of the things that will be addressed by this are pretty easy to find and generally easy to fix. I doubt most of the participants really want to get involved in any in-depth work in a controversial area, but see the need to get this topic back in line with our policies and guidelines. It shouldn't take very long at all to ensure that BLP policy is met, but people are going work at their own pace and choose which articles to work on. For example, I've pointed out an obvious and easily fixed issue with List of Scientologists and List of Scientology officials, but no one has addressed it. Why not take a look for yourself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, while I am sure that many people would not want to have their name associated with Scientology, I do not believe that it is implied by the project that it is "vaguely defamatory" to do so. This really is no different than labelling someone as a Catholic (to use your example religion) who is not a Catholic or whose Catholicism is not relevant to their notability. WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear on this and has been largely ignored for too long (and not just in this specific subject area). What is your objection to ensuring that BLPs follow our poloicies? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to having all BLPs follow WP policies. This matter isn't about improving BLPs, it's about creating an ad hoc quasi-project to pursue a particular POV regarding a contentious topic. Many religious groups and beliefs are viewed negatively in one or another place. It is contrary to the NPOV approach to adopt one view and make edits based on that view. We should have the same standards for the Church of Scientology, the Church of Christ, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and any other church or faith. The name of the quasi-project implies that there is a neutrality problem with identifying people as Scientologists, whereas that seems more like a BLP or verifiability issue. If there isn't adequate sourcing for identifying people as Mormons would viewing it as a neutrality problem be the best way of fixing that issue?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of Scientology as I have seen is bloated and attacking in nature. A large part of it has been written by a single person? BLP and NPOV issues have already been discovered and I don't see under the circumstances an independent quasi - project as you call it wouldn't be considered totally beneficial , if some experienced users are willing to spend the time going over the articles in that field I can't see any problem with that, suggest leaving them alone and letting them get on with it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I am not sure why you believe that there is any one view being adopted here or what view you think that is - can you expand on that comment? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only view I see being expressed by that quasi-project is that connecting someone with Scientology, as opposed to other religions, is defamatory. Do you see any Scientology-positive commentary or editing there?   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that the project is biased against Scientology, rather than being neutral in attempting to apply WP:BLP? Sorry if that seems like a silly question, but it is sometimes difficult to tell which "side" people are complaining about when they start claiming bias one way or another. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of the quasi-proeject, or whatever it should be called, to fix BLP problems or neutrality issues? The name implies the latter. But a neutral approach would say that it is not more defamatory to say someone is a member of COS than of any other religion or organization. That is not the approach being taken, so it looks like neutrality is not the goal of the quasi-project. Rather, the purpose seems to be removing mentions of Scientology from bios. That seems more like BLP project or maybe even a verifiability project, rather than neutrality. Do you endorse creating these quasi-projects for any topic where an editors thinks some improvement is possible?   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this effort was prompted in part by my efforts to reveal the POV-pushing that has been going on in the Scientology topic area for quite some time (ANI thread, request for ARBSCI enforcement and second request for ARBSCI enforcement). There is no question that this topic area needs to be reviewed for neutrality, as ArbCom recognized in their finding of WP:ARBSCI. I applaud Scott Mac for getting this going, although at this point having people who self-identify as "anti-Scientology activists" joining a project that is meant to address neutrality issues suggests that perhaps this needs to constituted a bit more formally if it is to be fully successful.

The removal of Scientology-related categories from BLP articles where they do not belong is a simple and obvious first step. This is merely bringing the articles in line with WP:BLPCAT. I hope this spreads to other topic areas which deal with religion or ethnicity. Perhaps your issue is with the policy rather than its application? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a special quasi-project necessary for brining articles in line with WP:BLPCAT? Why restrict it to just one category? If I understand correctly, WP:BLPCAT applies to dozens or hundreds of categories, many of which have been contentious. Do you think we should start creating similar pages for all of those too?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, as I said, I think bringing things in line with WP:BLPCAT is an obvious starting point, not the sole aim of the project. And I would very much like to see this effort go on in other areas, although I can't say if there is as obvious a need anywhere else. I'm still not sure what your problem is with this project. I've tried to get you to explain in what way you think it is biased, but you haven't really responded. You seem to be saying that making sure our policies and guidelines have been properly applied is biased if the only articles under scrutiny relate to Scientology. I disagree.

Incidentally, take a look at Ethan Suplee - it was brought in line with WP:BLPCAT by removing the unsourced assertion that he is a Scientologist. User:Karppinen has just added a source which refers to Suplee as a Scientologist and re-added the "American Scientologists category (thus violating BLPCAT). I doubt this was done maliciously, since I suspect Karppinen is unaware of that policy. Regardless, are Suplee's beliefs relevant to his notability? I don't believe they are and see no reason why we should be attempting to label people as Scientologists (or Catholics, or Jews, or Animists, or anything else) unless it is part of why they are notable. Does that make me biased in some way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...not the sole aim of the project. First, is it a project? If not, what is it?   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are policy compliant, helpful edits being made? Beyond that, who cares? Seriously?--Scott Mac 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it (whatever "it" is) is short term. What do you mean by that? When will it be completed and what will happen to it then?   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Why don't we figure it out later? Maybe nothing at all. As long as articles don't suffer, let's live with some uncertainty. --Scott Mac 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's of indefinite duration. It's already lasted longer than some Wikiprojects. Why the objection to calling it a Wikiproject? Is there something wrong with those?   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been here, now bored. You may have the last word.--Scott Mac 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. If you make edits to a Scientology-related article, & someone accuses you of being a pro-Scientology shill, simply respond, "By Xenu, I am made these edits for this reason" -- & explain yourself. Unless Miscavige has changed "The Tech" in the last ten years, no Scientologist dare speak the name of Xenu without risk of inflicting such horrendous damage on her or himself that only hundreds of thousands of dollars of auditting will undo. Even if they have no idea who Xenu is. Or so they believe. -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little as I like to suggest it, I think that Talk:Schapelle Corby would benefit from semi-protection. The amount of soapboxing and attacks, both specifically and generally directed, are getting a bit excessive. What do other uninvolved people think? I would consider myself uninvolved, as I think I've only taken admin actions here, but considering I've been dragged off-wiki, I'm not sure whether that's a reasonable claim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree — not because the talk page is free from problems, but because there have only been a few new-or-unregistered editors causing problems. If the soapboxing belongs on the page, it should stay there; if not, its removal could be accompanied by warnings and eventually blocks. In my mind, semiprotection is only appropriate if there's a significant number of different editors causing problems, since we can't easily warn or block all of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who seem to be recruited here from http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com are making no progress in grasping Wikipedia policy. They must be firmly in possession of the WP:TRUTH so they are not listening to any of the advice provided. See the collapsed discussion at Talk:Schapelle_Corby#Exposing the censorship on Wikipedia_._._.. We should not put up with this indefinitely. I propose that a 7-day semi might be considered, if there are any more new posts that express no willingness to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and that sounds sensible. Judging from the group's website it should be noted, however, that the admin who does this is likely to have their username and comments posted and criticised on the website as being part of some kind of conspiracy. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering I already have, I guess I'm the natural choice. :-) Anybody else want to chime in first? (Oh, and see also the recent discussion at WP:ANI#Difficulties at Schapelle Corby.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a reasonable idea at this time, but keep it short-term and put a big notice explaining why at the top of the talk page. Trebor (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is wanting an admin who will put their name to the protection action and advice, I am prepared to do so. Not only have I no prior involvement, I am uninterested on what off site opinion pages may say about me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check her latest blog, you are already being vilified in the unpopular unpress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take your word for it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That is massively dense and detail-heavy article for what is really just a typical, Southeast Asian "but it wasn't my bag!" drug bust. The (largely localized Aussie) coverage that is typical of the media's endless remix of its missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, try not to stir things up further. One might acknowledge the controversy and ask for sourced quotes, rather than trying to make the article narrative carry any PoV at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold fire on the protection of the article, and see what happens now that a major protagonist has been blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIDING THE ISSUE Why is the following being deleted at every turn? Kim Bax was banned for confronting it, and now my posts are blocked and my IP is banned for articulating it. It is very serious, and you are attacking me for asking Wikipedia to investigate corruption which has already been highlighted in the media articles I linked to.

The article is and has been subject to management by government proxies, as are many others which are politically sensitive. This is the blunt truth, but it appears that you are ok with that, and wish to hide it.

THE ORIGINAL EDIT (DELETED) Well, thank you for the ban. Was it panic, or was it censorship?

No, I am not Kim Bax. I am not even in Australia. I simply watch Australia's crimninality and corruption with respect to that case from afar, and that includes their government's manipulation of Wikipedia articles by proxy (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443430.php and http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2014471.htm show they were rather clumsy at first).

Don't worry though, I am well aware that you act as a gang in terms of always backing each other based upon how many edits/years you have been operative. The honest ones amongst you might, behind the scenes, care to look at some of your colleagues a little more closely. Go on: I dare you.

You will find that my edit, which they repeatedly collapse, is absolutely accurate -

Why no Wikipedia investigation into the long term corruption of this article, and those who have been engaging in it?

I suggest that you go back to first principles. This article is appalling. It is a biased, propagandistic, misrepresentation of the facts, hostile to Schapelle Corby. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's founding principles.

Further, this state of affairs has been heavily protected for some years, by a relatively small number, sometimes acting under proxy identities. You must surely be aware of this, but if you are not, I suggest that you actually start to do some research. Begin with the long term edit patterns of some of those reversions of facts which are actually core to the case (eg: human rights abuse http://www.schapelle.net/report.html). Investigate. Look at the edits, and the consistent patterns, of individuals.

In a number of cases look at their own words on the talk pages. Look at their ignorance of the case facts, the zealous nature of their editing, and their clearly hostile position with respect to Schapelle Corby.

Ask if they should be anywhere near to editing this article. And yes, I am referring to those you would consider to be experienced senior editors. It's a position they hide behind to get away with this gross abuse. It is a shield, which blinds you.

But you won’t do any of this will you? And neither will any other 'Admin'. It is far too easy to turn a blind eye, and pretend that the reality of this article is fantasy. But it isn’t, and it isn’t limited to this article either. But this article though is particularly stark, not only because the intense management of it is relatively easy to establish, but because it is so revolting in terms of the agenda is supports.

Those links posted above by the way, to the Australian government being caught red handed systematically editing and abusing Wikipedia articles - do you imagine they just simply ceased when those news reports emerged? Are you REALLY that naïve? In case you are, here is some coffee to sniff - they became more professional at it.

So are you going to do your job and establish a full investigation into the edit patterns and previous editors with respect to this article? I won't hold my breath (but whilst you dodge it, you may find that downstream someone else will do it for you, to detriment of Wikipedia as a whole).

Why is Wikipedia not interested in preventing the political abuse of this article, when it is already 100% established that Australian government officials and affiliates have engaged in this for years? Please confront the corruption and those engaging in it (and at least one has posted on this page), rather than run away from it.

Feel free to ban me again. You can shoot the messenger but the truth will eventually emerge, and through your refusal to face it you will have been complicit in some pretty disgusting stuff. 86.169.139.162 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bored now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a pathetic comment like this is the best that Wikipedia can come up with, in the face of systemic corruption, speaks volumes. 217.43.142.249 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the place to mention this, but here goes anyway.

I was just made aware that someone has been vandalizing various wikimedia projects under my username. It was suggested that I make a unified login - however, I never edited any wikimedia projects except for wikipedia proper and I think wikiquote. The login ID "McJeff" is already registered by someone else on wikimedia, making me unable to do this.

If this isn't the place to deal with this, please point me in the right direction to do so. McJEFF ^(talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep someone sure is: [2]. No SUL has been created yet, so all you need to do is click your Preferences link in the top right and click "Unify my account" on the first pane that comes up. That will prevent anyone from registering that name anymore. Now, attaching all those banned accounts to your SUL is a whole other ball-o-wax, but you don't need to do that unless you want to edit on those other projects. Arakunem^Talk 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks are simple—opening, closing, passing and declining cases and motions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; and preserving order and proper formatting on cases. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot.

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk. One of us will be in touch you shortly.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,
NW (Talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Can I get some admins to comment on this discussion please? Thanks, œ^™ 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been offended and attacked by the user:Makedonovlah on my talk page. He called my Bulgarian, Slav, the most offensive Slavomacedonia, and calling my country FYROM or FYROMIAN. This is strong offence for the Macedonian users and I expect some actions. He also blamed me for something which I am not familiar with and all this is against the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Here is the message. Regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Since he's a newbie there's probably no need for immediate further action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reg--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of my Facebook friends noted, if you strip the first and last lines off this image, it applies pretty well anywhere -- particularly here. (Note that I'm not claiming to follow the rules very well myself....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perma ban - For attempting to inject objective, rational rules of discussion into the MMORPG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aggro on Burpleson AFB. Aggro, aggro, aggro... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, the Arbitration Committee reviewed a request by User:Jayjg to remove editing restrictions placed on him in the abovementioned case. By a vote of 12-0, the Committee passed the following motion:

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Would an admin (or admins) close the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 29#Westbrook_Technologies and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27, which includes List of deaths related to Scientology, List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians, Tase Matsunaga? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Almost nine months ago (ANI discussion), Diego Grez (talk · contribs) (formerly MisterWiki (talk · contribs)) was released from an indefinite block under strict conditions, which confined him to editing only within his userspace. Just over six months ago, a discussion at AN reached consensus to loosen those restrictions to:

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) is restricted to a single account (excepting the employ of an approved bot), shall abide by all policies and guidelines, and continue to work with mentor HJ Mitchell.

Six months on, I think the mentoring has had a positive effect on both myself and Diego. Therefore, after consultation with Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (the admin who closed the original unblock discussion), I think it's time to allow Diego to edit without restrictions, so I come here to ask if the community shares my assessment and if they are willing to remove Diego's name from WP:RESTRICT. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to work with Diego on an informal basis. Any takers? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Diego has come a long way from his days as MisterWiki, and I see no need for the ongoing listing at WP:RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I can vouch for those who have said he has improved dramatically over the past full year. –MuZemike 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This restriction is still in force? Definitely support lifting it for all the reasons above. (Of course, it should go without saying that lifting the restriction does not mean DG can stop "abiding by policies and guidelines". :) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, he's still under restrictions? - He's come a long way. I think his MrWiki days are past. (this is a support, btw) (X! · talk)  · @124  ·  01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove them; he's come a long way and although he makes occasional mistakes like everyone else, I can say that he's ready now. His time on Wikinews (where he is an admin) has also helped. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Xeno. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Fetchcomms. sonia♫ 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Re your edit summary - non-admins and admins have equal ability to contribute to discussions regarding community editing restrictions and have their contributions taken into account. Which is why AN is a funny place to have these discussions because it's meant to be a noticeboard to get the attention of admins. But WP:BAN says it's the right venue.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a point of order, what is the relationship between this request and the confusing series of usurpations and renaming accounts that went on today regarding Diego Grez? --Jayron32 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  he did one on s:; s:User talk:Zhaladshar#Rename request, citing privacy concerns. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cautious support, per teh Biguns high in this thread ;) Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is now resolved. But if admins want a warning of how badly BLP lists can get (and a chuckle to boot) take a look at List of people with strabismus. Of course, every item was sourced!!!! So why did I delete it? Now, just look at the sourcing - yes all of it.

If it wasn't for the living people involved, I'd have kept this. This one deserved preserving for posterity.--Scott Mac 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I counted two reliable sources, but one was an unlinked reference to The New Yorker, and the other was to an article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that didn't quite say what the list asserted, because it never used the term "strabismus". The rest was absolute junk. Horologium (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a point to make because of this AFD? Heiro 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. the strabismus page had been here since early 2008 and just apparently lay largely unnoticed.—Soap— 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since it was already deleted, I couldn't go check on edit history. Heiro 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably not hurt to go through Special:PrefixIndex/List_of_people_with and nominate similar pages about medical problems and the like. (X! · talk)  · @251  ·  05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list was a classic example of the "coincidental cross-section of facts" as a bad reason to create a list. The referencing seems immaterial to me. One could create a List of birds species with orange tailfeathers or a List of automobiles with more than four cupholders or any of a number of other lists which have zero BLP problems, may actually be referencable to reliable sources, but still are epic fails with regards to being suitible topics for an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 06:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]