Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] I found this article in the Wikipedia deleted articles archives
Being an investigative journalist and a reporter for a major newspaper, I thought that its only fair to show the other side of this story to the article titled Ecopave Australia nonsense, It appears that this article is not being given a fair right to respond to allegations raised by a Wikipedia administrator mr Guy Chapman Susanfg 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Accusations that Ecopave Australia has spammed in Wikipedia are incorrect and false
Why am I responding to these accusations? because this could also happen to any one wanting to contribute into Wikipedia, I have raised some serious issues that if left un-addressed, could potentially cause serious harm to someones professional or academic reputation as a result.
My understanding after what I have been told by Ecopave, is that their people wanted to contribute into Wikipedia "in good faith" by adding articles about their company and products in the same way as many other companies have done in the past like for example Eco-cement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-cement. These users also added positive information articles about other eco-concious companies like Cereplast in an effort to demonstrate that there are viable non-petroleum plastic alternatives already available on the market that will help make the transition to renewables less painful for our society. In regards to the accusations that these same users were also deleting "competitor" information is also absolutely false and misleading because Ecopave Australia does not view anyone as a competiror in the renewables arena, but considers them allies who are helping to bring products to the market place that ultimately help our society in the battle against climate change, pollution and poverty. These users also made referrence to article bias and raised issues about the Wikipedia administrators and their behaviour and conduct, specific examples were also raised in the right context in the course of these discussions and examples were also made to illustrate a point. The gray area between advertising and knowledge based information was also debated.
There was apparently some initial confusion concerning the Wikipedia guidelines and rules regarding editing and new article contributions and user access which may have led to some administrators deliberately jumping to the sockpuppet (spam) accusations and conclusions. What I understand is that because large amount of the readable information about these guideline subject matters is spread over a vast area and is not easy to find in Wikipedia to date, has caused these users to continue to edit and add information about Ecopave and its products and other useful articles without realising that their actions may or may not have been mis-interpreted. This matter may have been made worse by the fact that there were 3 admins looking into this at the same time and one admin actually requested Ecopave to give (send) copyright (Wikipedia:Copyrights) authorisations for all the article insertions after which he placed a permanent block against the Ecopave users. The interesting thing about this maneuver was that all the Ecopave article contributions were now high-jacked and linked (spread) to other websites without any author acknowledgements. "Prior" to this incident, Ecopave made the conclusion that the articles were in fact ok and they were going to be accepted without any problems. Instead of these 3 Administrators giving a helping hand and giving guidance, they resorted to attacks and smear campaigns against Ecopave and its users. The above accusations by Guy Chapman that the company was deliberately running a spamming campaign in Wikipedia is totally incorrect and false and therefore misleading, also to turn insult to injury, some Wikipedia administrators and or users were sending Ecopave malicious email viruses (Computer virus) to try to further prevent Ecopave from giving a proper response in defence. The real irony here is that Guy Chapman who is a Wikipedia administrator, appears to be running he's own spamming and PR campaign (see his contribs) in Wikipedia by using 3 seperate IP addresses which are clearly designed to assist in bringing consensus into arguments against users who's article (ideology) is not in par with his. See this transcript of the discussion that took place with Guy on my talk page on 17-10-06 which was later discretely deleted by Guy, this also raises an interesting question, how many other Wikipedia Administrators are using multiple IP addresses so as to help achieve consensus in a debate? Fact Finder 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Fact Finder said, "It is totally unfair to accuse users without proof or proper cause, show me one thing that I have done something that is spam? Right, there is none because I am not a spammer, get your facts straight mister before you accuse people. Im a new user so there is a LEARNING CURVE here also and people make mistakes too, I believe that you are showing total disregard towards this aspect here NETSNIPE, your user name is already indicative of your intentions here, you appear to be hell bent on a SNIPE!!. For you to be a proper representative of Wikipedia policies you should show a little understanding towards new users instead of jumping to automatic negative conclusions. Iam seriously considering not contributing to Wikipedia if this is the treatment that people get in here maby this was a mistake or maby that's what you realy want which would begg the question "what is your vested interest maby Eco-cement??". I seriously hope that common sence and a bit of understanding and good will, will prevail here if given half the chance. I am more than happy to give this a go with assurances that I am not a spammer or a user with any malicious intent, are you?. In the name of peace and harmony I am willing to go as far as to say that, Netsipe you pick what name you would be happy for me to use in Wikipedia just so that we can get along here OK!. And the last but not least matter regarding IP addresses! In this day and age of spam and viruses one would be totally insane to use a fixed IP address and be vulnerable for attacks, many companies refresh and reload their servers every day to erase spam and other rubbish that is accumulated during the day therefore the IP address has no real meaning to measure or validate users intentions and is not a REAL indication of a persons intent as a sockpuppet which refers that an individual is malicuious. The ONLY method that has any merit is to LOOK AT THEIR WORK and ACTIONS ONLY!" Fact Finder 60.230.51.158. 06:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)| "This is not about the username and it's not about other users, it's about you and your behaviour. If you want to edit Wikipedia you need to go back to one of your other accounts, request unblocking, and indicate acceptance of policy and undertake not to spam again. Mind you, I'm obviously insane as I use not one but three fixed IP addresses". Guy 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)}}
People can make up their own minds by further reading the frustrating experience the Eco-cement inventor and CEO John Harrison went through getting the environmentally friendly cement accepted into Wikipedia and protecting the facts from being turned into fiction here in the Eco-cement discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eco-cement,
No one contributing into Wikipedia should have to endure this kind of treatment especially from admins that lack expert knowledge, common courtesy and good-will, Fact Finder 138.217.64.209 05:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I must admit and say that I am a little reluctant to commence to contribute with articles into Wikipedia when this kind of rampant Admin generated abuse is going on. The spare time that I have available that I could use constructively by creating articles, makes me believe that it would all be in vain because they would un-doubtetly be attacked and shredded by these administrators which in effect could make me look very silly indeed, especially in my fields of expertise. I would like to make a very important observation which I have made while being in here, and that is the Wikipedia "open editing format" and admin abuse towards users. The fact that "some" current administrators are able to willy nilly enforce article edits without in-depth specialised knowledge, ( see the Eco-cement story ) has the potential to not only harm other administrators, but also peoples (article contributors) professional reputations in their fields of expertise and effectively turning cutting edge scientists into apparent morons overnight.
I have also been forced to recreate a new user (Fact Finder) profile and page because I was once again attacked and blocked from Wikipedia buy Guy Chapman who deleted all my talk page content and evidence that pointed to his antics, this administrator appears to be way out of control, (shakes head), Fact Finder2 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone interested in having a look at what's going on here may want to also check this link to my previous Fact Finder user talk page which concerns accusations by Guy Chapman that I am supposedly a spammer which is a false accusation. Just because I have been evaluating whether I should start contributing in Wikipedia or not, does not make me a spammer. All I have done is to try "replace" factual information which I have written that was deleted and hence turned into fiction without any discussion, in an effort by this and "other" admins to give a totally distorted view of events concerning Ecopave. The page links which require removal from Wikipedia as I have highlighted in these following links,
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fact_Finder,
- Advice to new users regarding trademark and libel laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22
serve no other purpose except for Guy Chapman to increase his own notoriety and link exposure on the net at the expense of Wikipedia and the "dilution" of Ecopave Australia and GE032o Trademarks.
Last but not least, there appears also to be this obvious overwhelming importance on the Wikipedia page,link and Google rank which is constantly expedited by some administrators who make it seem like this is the only important thing that matters at all in Wikipedia. We all know that these admins like Guy Chapman are benefitting from driving this link farm mentality and it only serves their own interests at the expense of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Recommendation, Any Wikipedia administrator who copies article contents to other Wikipedia pages for no other reason than to make someone look bad, or deletes text by turning facts into fiction and therefore out of context to try to achieve the same thing, or link to pages or content that would make the user look bad, should be automatically stripped of their Wikipedia administrator status, because by doing these things the admin would be in breach of "Good Will" conduct and quite clearly only interested in exersising "Bad-Will". Also if The administrators emphasis is more in creating web and page links above article content or user help and guidance, the same removal of admin privelages should be made to apply, Fact Finder2 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Fact Finder2 08:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unanimity for community banning?
(Text moved to Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unanimity_for_community_banning.3F).
[edit] Akron Wiki
I feel that the Akron Wiki article is being unfairly deleted, and that it, and the word "Akronness" should have article status. Please tell the people involved to make changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki1950 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- The discussions about this were at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akron Wiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akroness. You or anyone else is quite welcome to revisit either of these at Wikipedia:Deletion review. On the other hand, unless something significantly changes (like the website is still there in two years and has become a widely known and used regional resource) my guess is there's approximately a 0% chance that either of these articles will be restored. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Discussion removed.
This doesn't belong on the talk page here, and in any event the issue has been dealt with already on your user talk page. No user is permitted to have non-free images on their user page: Wikipedia:User page#Images_on_user_pages. --bainer (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should this be archived?
Should this be archived? It seems that some of the reports aren't garnering any further attention, and several of them seem to have been resolved.--Vercalos 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm refering to the /incedents subsection.--Vercalos 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That page is archived several times a day by a bot that removes any section where there has been no discussion in two days. Essjay (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ANI archive size
Currently, ANI is archived by Essjaybot such that the archive is "filled" until the archive exceeds 300KB. The result of this is that the archive can get up to 350 or 400KB. The consequence of this is that there is a delay in loading even on newer computers with fast connections, and an even greater delay on older machines or slower connections or when opening several archives at once to find discussions from a particular time period. The typical archive size for article talk page is more around 130KB, and the typical size for administrative noticeboard archives—when the switching of their archives was not ignored—was more around 200KB and less. The reason given for having such large archives is to reduce the number of archives. This provides no great advantage—we have no shortage of numbers—but there is a practical disadvantage for having large single archives. —Centrx→talk • 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, the size should be reduced. I don't know exactly how the bot works, but it should be an easy thing to change. Maybe reduce the 300k to 100k? --Tango 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds great to me and my extraordinarily sketchy dial-up. Snoutwood 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do it. Alphachimp 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been reduced to 150 KB. Ah, the ease with which consensus is implemented. Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template for reporting offensive usernames?
Hi there!
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I think it is. Please gently point it out to me if it's not.
At times, I am running through the new user log and I find an offensive username. Rather than put them on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, I would prefer it if I could just put a template, like {{Offensive username}}, on the offending user's page. If this template added the usernames to a category, like 'Category:Offensive usernames', then admins could just run through the list and block these users indef. If this was approved I could change all the sections in policies and guidelines saying to put the template on instead of reporting the users on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.
Cheers and thanks for considering this,
Yuser31415 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that reporting them is better, especially reporting them to AIV because it is meant for that sort of thing and it is wiped clean rather than archived, because it is better to not create user pages or talk pages for offensive names. The user or talk page could be deleted afterwards, but it would be more work and admins might neglect to delete them. -- Kjkolb 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
