Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187

Request to impeach the Administrator User:Shizhao

Resolved

 – Not an en.wiki issue. Take it to commons.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He is blind to the flag that the copyrights of the pictures have expired and has deleted many expired pictures in the wiki common. He is unable to exert his power correctly and serves actually a destructor of wiki, so please revoke his administration power. Amphylite (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC) This request relocated from top of page to proper location Ronnotel (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he is doing his job exactly as it is supposed to. I think keeping him around for a while longer would be a good idea. If you don't want your pictures deleted, please obey our image use policy. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Article 1, Section 3, only the Senate has the right to try this. Take it to the President of the Senate, okay? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I find your US-centric views disturbing. What we need, according to law, is a two-thirds vote in the Legislative Yuan together with an absolute majority in a referendum. FlyingToaster 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Wikipedia falls within US Sovereign territory and is subject to the letter of the US Constitution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue for en.wiki. Shizhao is not an admin here, and (as the complainant states) he is deleting images from Commons, not en.wiki. Take it up at commons:, not here. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images

Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Relations in Africa

My articles Angola · Benin · Botswana · Burkina Faso · Burundi · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Democratic Republic of the Congo · Republic of the Congo · Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) · Djibouti · Equatorial Guinea · Eritrea · Gabon · The Gambia were deleted by Fram (talk · contribs) i understand why but i know my self it was not copy paste i had rewritten it from the internet article so it wouldn't be copyright. Basically what i am request is if someone can restore the pages to my sandbox so i can edit them to be accepted as not copy paste. My intent was never to violate and copyright issues and i'm hopeing i can be able to fix it with your help. Cheers and sorry if this is in the wrong place Kyle1278 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a couple of the articles, they were almost word for word from the originals, with a few words changed - that doesn't make them different enough from the original to be considered kosher, far as I'm aware. I'd suggest restarting, using those Canadian government pages as one source, and find some others to work from, then rewrite them entirely in your own words in userspace. Other than that, you'd be better off going to deletion review. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User RFCs

Resolved

 – Will be closed within 48 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of user RFCs that are a month or more old, and should be closed. As these have a tendency to become cesspools of nastiness when they go past their time limits (or usefulness), could someone please close them? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The most recent one should also be closed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving is certainly not satisfied; unless 2 or 3 are satisfied, I'm afraid the RfC filed against you cannot be closed or archived. If this has proceeded to another step in dispute resolution, can you please provide a link? Alternatively, a link to where the parties have agreed to close the RfC? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NobelBot misbehaving

Resolved

 – Operator responded, will no longer work in template namespace. Bot unblocked. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NobelBot (talk · contribs) seems to have issues with templates using {{Documentation}}. Instead of adding the interwiki links to the template's documentation, it adds them directly to the template itself, outside of the <noinclude> tags. These interwiki links then get passed on to articles that transclude the template. (Examples: [1][2][3]) --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also adding interwikis in User space, which I don't think is appropriate behavor. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked until the operator tells the bot to stop working on the template (and probably user) namespace. Any administrator feel free to lift this block when the operator has confirmed their bot is in compliance. –xeno (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Protracted edit war at User:Calton

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Incivility and personal attacks by Calton; as the protracted edit war at User:Calton (edit | [[Talk:User:Calton|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) continues... The question remains: Does this removed text represent a WP:BLP or WP:USERPAGE violation? If not, should the page be semi-protected? –xeno (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with rootology there. As long as no one is named, I don't think there is much of a problem. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think those users who find Calton's page OK should review the Arbcom rstatements in the Tobias Conradi case, which said that personally directed comments like these should not be preserved in userspace. They should also revie Jimbo Wales' comments on the matter. Those say that content like this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Calton is just wikilawyering that taking the names off the comments but making sure he posts enough information to identify his targets is OK. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

More backlogging

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is approaching 300 pages. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Need a closing admin

Can some nice uninvolved admin stop by Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions#RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability .28criminal acts.29 be adopted as a guideline.3F to close the straw poll discussion on Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts) as either adopted or not adopted? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it the purpose of administrators to decide on the results of a straw poll? I think regular editors can judge consensus. Chillum 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)#What_happened.3F what consensus on the page is, and the usual way to resolve such things is to have an admin close. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read through the entire page, poll and everything else, I don't see any problem with this being a guideline. It fits in with all our existing notability policies and guidelines. Anc after all, it's a guideline not a policy. If anyone has any major issues with it they can WP:BOLDly edit it (though if they're reverted, WP:BRD of course). Therefore, marked as a guideline. Black Kite 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published. A summary may be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 - Sovereign Grace Ministries

• Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jbolden1517 has warned an editor after 1 edit in a highly contentious article. Jbolden1517 has repeatedly added a series of Blogs, discussion sites, and hybrid sites to the article, arguing that they must be included as there are no wp:RS to balance the positive information about the subject, both as ELs and as RS, arguing that all other wp:RS are "random" and the blogs and chat sites are together reliable. I am too close to this to take any further action. I think Jbolden1517 needs:

• a caution not to use warnings for 1st removal of content added without consenesus in a highly contentious article - this is incivil and abusive of editing privilege
• a warning not to use sources that explicitly fail wp:EL without clear consensus that they add enough value to the article to merit an exception to wp:EL
• a warning not to perform editing tests in "live" articles, but to use or create a wp:sandbox

A short full protection on the article to let interested editors seek actual wp:RS, and possibly (though I am dubious) discuss future expansions of the article.sinneed (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has nothing to do with the external links it was the removal of sourced material warning diff that provoked the warning to FenderPriest (talk · contribs). The actual change involved removing an entire section [4]

The EL discussion is a separate issue, and had nothing to do with the vandalism warning. It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church. This has been going on for 2 months, well before I ever edited the article. [5] I suspect, the recent ANI complaint is the result of the fact that I'm starting to put this all together in terms of reliable sources. You can look back on the article for almost a year of blocks and intimidation of other editors that have tried to mention this topic. I have suggested that the issue of these links be handled by an RFC which is fully in keeping with policy. jbolden1517^Talk 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church." - this is incivil, in and of itself, and should be redacted. "I have no dog in this fight." having followed a vandal to it, found it to be more an advertisement than an article, and cut away at what I saw as self-serving content steadily. Please remove your focus from me.sinneed (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs a clear consensus of editors to include mention of the survivor sites in the blog, and WP:Dispute resolution needs to be followed if people can't achieve that. In January 2009 an admin at BLPN explained how an RFC could be done on this issue, but nobody has followed his suggestion. Even an opponent of the links could open an RFC. People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution, could eventually be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring. Jbolden's comments about vandalism are certainly incorrect. Those who support the inclusion of the blogs would be expected to explain the case for them, in the absence of any WP:RS which comment on their importance and significance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed I 100% agree that an RFC is called for regarding these links. I 100% agree with other dispute resolution being used for those links. The vandalism warning had nothing do with those links (see the diff above). This is sineed (deliberately?) conflating two issues to strengthen his complaint. I want an RFC, since I think this is a more general problem. As I indicated on the talk pages.

The material that was deleted had references to all the principle parties and meets WP:RS. It had absolutely nothing to do with those links. What it was however was reliable sourced information about SGM that shows misconduct as verified by an independent 3rd party (Christian Research Institute) and a knowledge 3rd party (Growing Families Internation). A policy that (sinneed and?) FenderPriest would rather not have discussed. In other words this is not a debate about WP:EL at all, there are no external links in the material deleted, with the exception of the personal blog of the woman who is being discussed at length (a first party EL). That link, to the best of my knowledge, has not had any discussion prior to me bring it up.

In fact when those links have been deleted I have not made a vandalism claim. jbolden1517^Talk 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• At least 4 issues, actually. The 4th would be "claiming consensus for undiscussed changes", but that is part of the warning to Fenderpriest.
• As I stated to Fenderpriest, I cannot support Fenderpriest's removal of the content at this time, as it is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps at a later date, if it isn't improved, after discussion and flagging. I also see the warning to the editor to be wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• EdJohnston: "People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution" Perhaps you missed the mediator being called in, outside editors asked to comment, article locked after reports at AIV and BLP. The BLP report provided the feedback that while the blogs/discussion sites pose no BLP problems, they were correctly deleted per wp:EL. This had been discussed endlessly (literally for years before I followed an edit war to it), and there are usable wp:RS, but using them is challenging, and no one has cared enough to add the content they would support. I certainly have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the interest in that kind of contentious expansion. Thus, I focused on removing the pro-church PoV.sinneed (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make the article balanced. However, the admin who responded to the BLPN filing in January proposed an RFC on whether the links should be included, and nobody has opened such an RFC. Those who revert in either direction now (either adding or removing the links) are not following WP:DR, and they could possibly face sanctions. The fact that an (apparently unsuccessful) mediation occurred sometime in the past does not let either party off the hook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, that makes sense. I had not read such an interpretation before, so this is news to me. I would not say I was trying for balance, so much as to avoid misuse of WP as an advertisement medium. I have never pushed edit warriors toward RFC firmly: now I have a "new arrow in my quiver". Thanks.sinneed (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• WOOPS! I had taken this as guidance in response to the BLP proposal, and a look at that editor history shows that to have been a mistake.sinneed (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A reader has pointed out that that sounds like an excuse. It is not: I am personally responsible for even my most bone-headed edits.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User hitlists

Resolved

Hi, I'm wondering if there a rule aganist users creating a type of "hitlists" on their sandbox page? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Details? //roux   01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, depends on the details. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with it. Longterm, it's seen as a sign of bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. Now this isn't suppose to be offensive but the user is friends with some admins that are of his ethnicity who seem to support him. He repeatedly accuses me of using personal attacks but I haven't. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin opinion: I have been told before (when I first started) and seen others told that lists like those in question aren't cool and shouldn't be in userspace or on Wikipedia at all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 02:25

After seeing the page, it looks like a bad idea. There's a difference in using a sandbox page to prepare a report on someone, and keeping a hitlist of editors you don't like without explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Clarification, NH: pages like that are acceptable in userspace if (and only if) they are being used as a sandbox for drafting an RFC/U, RFAR, etc. And even under those limited circumstances, the actual RFX needs to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. This use of userspace meets none of those conditions. Also, I have notified the user of this thread. There is also an odd accusation of sockpuppetry on the user's talkpage, which might be worth looking into given the apparent subject area interest. //roux   02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware and will remove it immediately. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 - Sovereign Grace Ministries

• Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jbolden1517 has warned an editor after 1 edit in a highly contentious article. Jbolden1517 has repeatedly added a series of Blogs, discussion sites, and hybrid sites to the article, arguing that they must be included as there are no wp:RS to balance the positive information about the subject, both as ELs and as RS, arguing that all other wp:RS are "random" and the blogs and chat sites are together reliable. I am too close to this to take any further action. I think Jbolden1517 needs:

• a caution not to use warnings for 1st removal of content added without consenesus in a highly contentious article - this is incivil and abusive of editing privilege
• a warning not to use sources that explicitly fail wp:EL without clear consensus that they add enough value to the article to merit an exception to wp:EL
• a warning not to perform editing tests in "live" articles, but to use or create a wp:sandbox

A short full protection on the article to let interested editors seek actual wp:RS, and possibly (though I am dubious) discuss future expansions of the article.sinneed (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has nothing to do with the external links it was the removal of sourced material warning diff that provoked the warning to FenderPriest (talk · contribs). The actual change involved removing an entire section [6]

The EL discussion is a separate issue, and had nothing to do with the vandalism warning. It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church. This has been going on for 2 months, well before I ever edited the article. [7] I suspect, the recent ANI complaint is the result of the fact that I'm starting to put this all together in terms of reliable sources. You can look back on the article for almost a year of blocks and intimidation of other editors that have tried to mention this topic. I have suggested that the issue of these links be handled by an RFC which is fully in keeping with policy. jbolden1517^Talk 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church." - this is incivil, in and of itself, and should be redacted. "I have no dog in this fight." having followed a vandal to it, found it to be more an advertisement than an article, and cut away at what I saw as self-serving content steadily. Please remove your focus from me.sinneed (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs a clear consensus of editors to include mention of the survivor sites in the blog, and WP:Dispute resolution needs to be followed if people can't achieve that. In January 2009 an admin at BLPN explained how an RFC could be done on this issue, but nobody has followed his suggestion. Even an opponent of the links could open an RFC. People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution, could eventually be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring. Jbolden's comments about vandalism are certainly incorrect. Those who support the inclusion of the blogs would be expected to explain the case for them, in the absence of any WP:RS which comment on their importance and significance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed I 100% agree that an RFC is called for regarding these links. I 100% agree with other dispute resolution being used for those links. The vandalism warning had nothing do with those links (see the diff above). This is sineed (deliberately?) conflating two issues to strengthen his complaint. I want an RFC, since I think this is a more general problem. As I indicated on the talk pages.

The material that was deleted had references to all the principle parties and meets WP:RS. It had absolutely nothing to do with those links. What it was however was reliable sourced information about SGM that shows misconduct as verified by an independent 3rd party (Christian Research Institute) and a knowledge 3rd party (Growing Families Internation). A policy that (sinneed and?) FenderPriest would rather not have discussed. In other words this is not a debate about WP:EL at all, there are no external links in the material deleted, with the exception of the personal blog of the woman who is being discussed at length (a first party EL). That link, to the best of my knowledge, has not had any discussion prior to me bring it up.

In fact when those links have been deleted I have not made a vandalism claim. jbolden1517^Talk 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• At least 4 issues, actually. The 4th would be "claiming consensus for undiscussed changes", but that is part of the warning to Fenderpriest.
• As I stated to Fenderpriest, I cannot support Fenderpriest's removal of the content at this time, as it is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps at a later date, if it isn't improved, after discussion and flagging. I also see the warning to the editor to be wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• EdJohnston: "People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution" Perhaps you missed the mediator being called in, outside editors asked to comment, article locked after reports at AIV and BLP. The BLP report provided the feedback that while the blogs/discussion sites pose no BLP problems, they were correctly deleted per wp:EL. This had been discussed endlessly (literally for years before I followed an edit war to it), and there are usable wp:RS, but using them is challenging, and no one has cared enough to add the content they would support. I certainly have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the interest in that kind of contentious expansion. Thus, I focused on removing the pro-church PoV.sinneed (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make the article balanced. However, the admin who responded to the BLPN filing in January proposed an RFC on whether the links should be included, and nobody has opened such an RFC. Those who revert in either direction now (either adding or removing the links) are not following WP:DR, and they could possibly face sanctions. The fact that an (apparently unsuccessful) mediation occurred sometime in the past does not let either party off the hook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, that makes sense. I had not read such an interpretation before, so this is news to me. I would not say I was trying for balance, so much as to avoid misuse of WP as an advertisement medium. I have never pushed edit warriors toward RFC firmly: now I have a "new arrow in my quiver". Thanks.sinneed (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• WOOPS! I had taken this as guidance in response to the BLP proposal, and a look at that editor history shows that to have been a mistake.sinneed (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A reader has pointed out that that sounds like an excuse. It is not: I am personally responsible for even my most bone-headed edits.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User hitlists

Resolved

Hi, I'm wondering if there a rule aganist users creating a type of "hitlists" on their sandbox page? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Details? //roux   01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, depends on the details. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with it. Longterm, it's seen as a sign of bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. Now this isn't suppose to be offensive but the user is friends with some admins that are of his ethnicity who seem to support him. He repeatedly accuses me of using personal attacks but I haven't. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin opinion: I have been told before (when I first started) and seen others told that lists like those in question aren't cool and shouldn't be in userspace or on Wikipedia at all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 02:25

After seeing the page, it looks like a bad idea. There's a difference in using a sandbox page to prepare a report on someone, and keeping a hitlist of editors you don't like without explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Clarification, NH: pages like that are acceptable in userspace if (and only if) they are being used as a sandbox for drafting an RFC/U, RFAR, etc. And even under those limited circumstances, the actual RFX needs to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. This use of userspace meets none of those conditions. Also, I have notified the user of this thread. There is also an odd accusation of sockpuppetry on the user's talkpage, which might be worth looking into given the apparent subject area interest. //roux   02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware and will remove it immediately. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Flarkins

Can someone else have a look at Flarkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his history and see if you think the indefblock is too harsh (I give explicit consent to overturn and won't consider it wheel-warring); also, can someone double check his image-taggings. I think I've reverted all the bogus ones, but there may be some I've missed. – iridescent 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… ABF is right more often than it's wrong. – iridescent 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is now claiming that he will sock in order to evade his block. This user is obviously racist, and doesn't want to change to meet our rules, I would suggest his contributions be watched, unless of course a CU feels like doing a check on his account to see if he has already created a new one, or at least, Iri, maybe you can give him a rangeblock?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On a technical level, I don't think being a racist is necessarily enough for a block. He's just an uncivil jerk, which is a perfectly fine reason for an indefinite block. Nonracist uncivil jerks deserve to be treated the same way. Look into it but frankly, he's not exactly subtle and we'll catch him when he starts again. At some point, he'll give up and be bored of this game. It's the subtle vandals that are the biggest headache. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Ricky; thoughtcrime is not a blockable offence – civil, neutral, amicable racists (should any be found) ought to be as welcome as their humanist, feminist, and liberal brethren. Everyone has a POV, and those that happen to be untrendy among Wikipedia's dominant sunstarved suburban white teenaged male demographic are not ipso facto any less conducive to the flourishing of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was racist, but he was uncivilly racist, in that when Iri confronted him about the taggings, he blanked the message with an edit summery of jew.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I think everyone is an agreement. He was uncivil totally. Edit summaries with the word "jew" for whatever reason are not appropriate and he should be blocked indefinitely for that. Just your other point is a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Foxgirl.jpg

File:Foxgirl.jpg - Can someone figure out what's happening with this image? It has been deleted several times for valid reasons, and the same people keep bringing it back... I tried to follow talk pages but now my head just hurts. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the copyright description links to the Chinese version, which has GNU-disputed tags. Is that the best they can come up with? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We say the source is ZH, they say their source is EN. Which is why it was deleted at least once, it had an IfD as well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a picture of a 3d work, thus it is a derivative work of whoever designed the toy. The image will need a fair use rational if it is to stay. Chillum 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Jeez.... You could have asked me or looked at our respective talk pages. I restored the first time because I felt that G4ing a file 2,5 years after the first deletion was not a good idea (there was no rush). The copyright status remained unclear so I sent it to PUI. The image was G4ed again by Jimfbleak. I complained and he restored and sent it again to PUI. Seriously, can't you guys wait 10 days to see clear up the status, or give it a FUR? What's the rush?! -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir

Resolved

 – Just wanted a second opinion, thanks Amalthea. — Aitias // discussion 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I have just closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir as delete. I am asking myself whether I should remove the translusions or substitute the template? I think substituting is better, isn't it? — Aitias // discussion 12:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The TfD found the tagging itself useless, and by extension the template. Based on this I say remove it. --Amalthea 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone else see value in simply deleting the talk pages that contain this template where: 1) there is only one edit to the page and 2) the template is the only content? Having these pages blue-linked but blank with no useful history seems unnecessary. –xeno (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to keep such pages. Horologium (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see a reason either, but how would such a deletion be in accordance with policy? — Aitias // discussion 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    WP:CSD#G6... –xeno (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I for one am not sure whether this would be covered by G6. — Aitias // discussion 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Do you see any controversy occuring from their deletion? If not, then it meets G6, no? –xeno (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    I do not, but I can imagine a lot of people complaining about the deletion of a talk page. — Aitias // discussion 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    That's why we're only deleting the ones that meet the two criteria above. If we build a consensus here, then G6 applies. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Okay then, as there seems to be consensus, I am going to delete them. — Aitias // discussion 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • They should obviously be deleted. What is the point of an empty blue link talk page with no meaningfull history? Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. In addition, if the page has a longer history but only contains the transcluded WPRedir template, it can be redirected to the talk page of the article's redirect target. --Amalthea 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we seem to have consensus, second question, anyone know how to generate a list based on those two criteria? –xeno (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just redirect them to the talk pages of the redirect target? So if Foo redirects to Bar, then redirect Talk:Foo to Talk:Bar. I believe we've established several times before that mass-deleting talk pages that meet arbitrary criterion X is usually a Bad Idea... Happy‑melon 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If we do this, it'll become just another page that our bot army has to tend to fixing double redirects and the like when their targets are moved. These talk pages (at least those that meet the criteria above), while created in good faith, are simply useless and serve better as a redlink. MZMcBride generated a database query and of that I extracted a list of pages that should meet those two criteria. They are found here if anyone wants to help. –xeno (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is now  Done. I also left a message for the (seemingly inactive) WikiProject noting that if they are going to create a new project banner that it should really only be added to redirect-describing templates and the like, not redirect talk pages. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ilovebucketheadz

Please can someone take a look at the activities of this user - Ilovebucketheadz (talk · contribs). Some of his edits seem OK and he is a member of a wikiproject. However other edits would appear to be straightforward vandalism (example1, example2). I also suspect this user has a much longer history of editing Wikipedia than his <100 edits would suggest - his first edit was to create a project subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Armed With Sodas. Is this something to be concerned about? Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the project subpage was originally created in article space, and only later moved to a project subpage, so that's probably not an indication of a returning user. Black Kite 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really see how the two edits you have quoted constitute "straightforward" vandalism. They look pretty bold and may not have been helpful in the long run, but I think WP:AGF applies here. Nothing else seems to be out of order. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Really?! One was the complete replacement of a notable Dave Atkins with a different Dave Atkins (leaving various football related articles with links to a musician) when a disambig page is the best way forwards. The other was effective move of a notable album to an incorrect title and the setting up of an implausible redirect. I disagree that these two edits were made in good faith. I addition the same user has created several articles about bands which have been speedily deleted (or moved to user subpages or project subpages). This user seems to be well versed in how Wikipedia works (despite his <100 edits) and should know better. Astronaut (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Right then, I investigated the problem with Dave Atkins and found that since it was "usurped" by the musician, it has been edited a dozen or so times and linked to around 20 other pages. It was easier to create Dave Atkins (NFL coach) and fixup the smaller number of links (and fixed a couple that should have pointed to Dave Atkins (actor)). Astronaut (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding blocks and socks

Currently we are conducting a coordinator election at WikiProject Films. Amongst the candidates is one Shamwow86 (talk · contribs), whom I asked several questions of when his stated editing history did not seem to match his contributions. His user page reminded me greatly of Creamy3's, a blocked user and self-proclaimed leader of the "Creamy Army" some time ago, who also ran for a film coordinator position about a year ago. Shamwow responded that he was not Creamy3, but rather Titchbits74 (talk · contribs), who was also blocked indefinitely (possibly as part of the Creamy Army - it is not yet clear to me), and appears to have nonetheless created two currently active user accounts, inclusive of Shamwow. While I have asked the blocking admin Ioeth (talk · contribs) for further information, since there appear to be no talk page records, Ioeth's activity lately has been sporadic, and I believe this requires some speed, since it involves an ongoing election. Has there been improper behavior, and if so, what should be done? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See the block log here instead of guessing. Tichbits74 was blocked for an inappropriate username (which I think should be clear). His last two comments [8][9] under that account should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss that when looking at the block log. Clears some of my questions up (although not all). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And now we have this, which surely is bad-faith electioneering, along with blatant canvassing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias's Right to Vanish

Aitias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently the subject of a Request for arbitration after a RFC failed to modify poor behavior. At 10:22 today, Aitias decided to retire from the project, but did not give up his sysop bit and has refused to engage in communications on his talk page and has not replied to numerous e-mail requests. He also indefinitely fully-protected his userpage, to which I reverted because there was no justification or rationale. Just a few minutes ago, Aitias sought right-to-vanish by deleting his talk page, however, it is not encouraged and can be overturned by community consensus -- which I am seeking.

As Aitias is the subject of a RFAR, and a former RFC, and has not yet given up the bit, his talk pages should be undeleted for the community to review. His comments on his talk page are linked to the RFAR, and should remain open to everyone. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He moved his talk page to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 which he also set [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite), and then deleted User talk:Aitias, for full log transparency. Oddly, he did not delete his user page, which raised my eyebrows as well. My question to him on his user talk if he will resign his bit is what triggered the archival. I will notify him of this. rootology (C)(T) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only deleted version of my talk page is a redirect to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 (cf. [10]). — Aitias // discussion 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I noted it here so people could follow the trail of your logs and history without having to dust off specialprefixindexthingy or any hacks to do it. As your status is very up in the air right now, that is the major concern--transparency. Will you be giving up the sysop bit on meta when your RTV cleaning is done? If you do, I have no problem if you nuke everything you made in userspace except your talk history. If you keep the bit, with a pending RFAR open, I reject your RTV (till the RFAR closes or you resign in process etc). Your pages are all evidence. rootology (C)(T) 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope everything is okay now. — Aitias // discussion 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost, and thanks. Are you resigning +sysop with your RTV? rootology (C)(T) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My comment was made in the midst of the RTV-process, and the page move to the Archive had not yet occurred. No worries. seicer | talk | contribs 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the one deleted edit for transparency, if people are looking for the latest talk page history, it gives a trail. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, you may wish to note that "and has not replied to numerous e-mail requests" is untrue. There is one e-mail and I did not even read it, but will do so later on (and reply then). — Aitias // discussion 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be saddened if the outcome of the current disputes is that Aitias decides to retire from Wikipedia, but that is his decision. I don't see any urgency to addressing issues about protection of his talkpage, etc., right this minute. Please allow some space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Rootology insistently asking about the state of Aitias's sysop bit? Since the case seems certain to be accepted, that can be considered by arbcom. Since the issues raised in the RFAR do not concern ongoing use of the tools, I see no reason for urgency. Many people have exercised their RTV before and retained their bit without controversy--Gator1, for example. If the issue here is whether the behavior lends itself to removal of the bit, that's what arbcom is before. Chick Bowen 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the Arbcom dimension to this, the Right to Vanish only applies when the user intends to vanish, that is not return to editing with the account in question or with another account in secrecy. As such, there is no reason for the retention of the sysop flag. If someone has a change of heart on an RTV, their history and rights are restored, pending Bureaucrat approval. That is how the system is supposed to work. Speaking hypothetically, an administrator ought not to be allowed duck out while under a cloud and come back when the fuss has died down and resume editing as usual. Skomorokh 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh has summed up my views eloquently for me. rootology (C)(T) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be what both of you think ought to happen, but Skomorokh's account of "how the system is supposed to work" is not, in fact, how it has ever worked. There is simply no policy under which one is compelled to ask for removal of the sysop bit. If it needs to be removed, it is done so by arbcom's decision, without necessarily consulting the admin. If such a decision doesn't exist, it is the admin's choice. Chick Bowen 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. No one is saying he "has to" request its removal. They are saying its pointless for him to retain it if he is truly exercising his right to vanish and "asking" him if he will be doing so. Synergy 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like hes gone to me... RTV has yet to apply here.Synergy 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Stating the obvious, obviously.

If anyone wants to vanish they need to give up their admin bit(in the case "under a cloud"). They also need to stop editing. If they are editing(or are an admin) then their talk page history and such should be available. Chillum 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh of course. His bit should be removed if he is citing RTV, and gone in his edit summaries. This is definitely leaving under a cloud. Synergy 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As an update; it is apparent that he is not actually retired/vanished as he has continued to edit since his "announcement"; while simultaneously (and against policy) protected several user talk pages. I've undone the protections, but this needs to stop and Aitias needs to make up his mind whether he is vanishing or not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the consternation as to what Aitias's plans are, as it's certainly caused some perplexity on the requests for arbitration page. That being said, please be open to the possibility that he hasn't made up his mind himself. The chance that a user who had intended to retire might change his mind is not so terrible that it should be keeping people awake at nights, and page protections or deletions can always be done if the person decides to come back or stick around. I certainly would prefer that Aitias not use any administrator tools while his status here is in a little bit of limbo. But my advice above, that some space be given to a colleague who is obviously going through a stressful time right now (whether or not some portion of the stress results from his own actions) remains in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention- BACKLOGGED

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. — neuro^(talk) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you folks know, the page is as full as I've ever seen it.... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because User:Calton likes to report defunct usernames en masse. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing about a dozen of them. Seriously, is it really necessary to report "spam" usernames that haven't edited in months? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We should only block usernames that are actually causing a problem. ⚗ Dr. StrangeBong ⚗ (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Fattdoggy

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. — neuro^(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone please keep tracking Fattdoggy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not sure if he is banned User:Fattdoggy. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Someone block please. I'm going to report them to WP:AIV now anyway. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Case was on the case! Blocked as a sockpuppet. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV...

Resolved

 – Once again, case is on the Daniel. — neuro^(talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

...is currently backlogged. First admin there gets a reward, block and be merry! :) C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Daniel Case seems to have cleared them out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Travis the chimp.png

File:Travis the chimp.png is for the article, Travis (chimpanzee). It would be good if somebody would keep it in the article. I can't because I don't want to waste my reverts on an editorial dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" pictures are supposed to be used until someone actually donates a picture.--Chuck (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very odd that an IP has such a particular interest in deleting a fair use image - It needs to be added that the subject of the image and article is dead. Otherwise I am sure that like myself the first impression will be no fairuse while a picture could be taken..... Agathoclea (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add that. Also, concerning Revision as of 04:22, March 15, 2009, that "a free image of Travis could reasonably be used" is not true, since Wikimedia doesn't have one. --Chuck (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not having one is not an argument - not being able to get one would be (That is very being dead comes in handy). Agathoclea (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 February 24#File:Travis (chimpanzee).jpg - Do we need to have a deletion discussion about every slightly different image of the same thing? It is a chimpanzee. Who cares what it looks like? It looks like a damn chimpanzee. Either deal with it or DRV, but this seems like gaming. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving images

FYI - brion today enabled the ability to move images, this was implemented across all projects and is limited to administrators only.[11] An example move log from commons is here. Nanonic (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty great! Pat on the back to Brion. :) — neuro^(talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird pair of upload requests

I'm not sure if I'm just being paranoid or what, but this struck me as odd and I'd really like some more eyes on this, as it may involve pedophilia. Please go to Wikipedia:Images for upload and look at the last two requests, title "Pretty girl" and "Little girl". One was requested by Littlegirlimage (talk · contribs) and the other requested by Beach-woman (talk · contribs), and both of these users only edits have been to make the accompanying requests. I know there is nothing overtly improper here. But I am suspicious. The first one seems like it might just be a throw away account created just to request that one image, or maybe these are both the same individual (SSP?). It isn't clear to me why either article needs more images, and why this user(s) is focusing on images of "pretty little girls". At the very least, I feel that we should not encourage these requests, but I wanted to see if I should just be AGF instead, or on the other hand if we should be contacting the authorities. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like generic trollery to me. Paedophiles would be much more careful than this. — neuro^(talk) 02:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is weird, someone actually accepted the request of the user and uploaded an image of a "little girl" 1. Can we delete this image or a least delete the user talk page? --J.Mundo (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Creepy.... I call white slave trade. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I call paranoia. --Carnildo (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo of the adorable child with a puppy from a website hosting public domain images is a good one. It isn't any more concerning than the photos already in the girl article. The girl on a beach I am not as comfortable about. Jonathunder (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the swimsuit photo is the only one uploaded by that particular flickr user, which is unusual. That whole request does feel odd. I'd say be bold and decline that one. Jonathunder (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked (I found this out when I went to username block the first account). I've closed the 2nd image request. If someone wants to delete the image that was already uploaded on the commons.... otherwise, I guess this is resolved. I'll still keep an eye out for any more requests of this nature on IFU.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

Resolved

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28 :Archive long resolved comment with unrecognisable (for bots) timestamp. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More eyes please on BLP policy regarding the use of childrens' names

A straw poll/discussion is in process to see if there is community consensus regarding the use of childrens' names at the BLP notice board. More input to gauge consensus is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 07:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with a convoluted move

Resolved

 – unconvoluted

Perhaps someone can help me: in my efforts to help a new user, I've unwittingly prompted him to move his userpage and talkpage (I was trying to get him to move a draft article out of his userpage onto a subpage). He's moved User:CBrowns to User:CBrownsDraft_of_Steve_Waldman_Article, and his talkpage along with it. Could an admin reverse the move? It requires the deletion of the redirect pages created at his original userpage and talkpage. Apologies for creating work *cringe*

Apologies too if this isn't the proper forum: the user and I appear to be in very different timezones, and it'll likely be hours before he comes online, discovers what happened, and learns enough about deletion process to place db-author and a rationale on the original userpages. If that would be better procedure, though, I'm happy to wait and will retract this post. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great - thanks for the deconvolution, zzuuzz. I resolve hereafter not to ruin WP before breakfast. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More Problems with the WWE Alumni Page

Look as much as I am for improving the articles, this guy did not improve the articles nor did he act on consensus. Some of us are having problems because he put them in alphabetical order rather than keep them on one list, which made it easier to track them because a lot of them we do not know their names for. Not only that, but the guy is also making provoking comments that would entice a user to respond with flames. Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment_alumniCena Jr (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As before, there is no admin action required at this point. If you can't work it out on the article talk page, then the issues need to go through the dispute resolution process. If you decide on formal mediation, you need to give logical and compelling arguments. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you're comments are trying are productive on the talk page. You come there solely to put down the article and that is all you have done, all week. You are not making suggestions on how to improve the article, your badgering me. The issue at the talk page is dead, yet you keep reviving threads and keep getting shot down, not only by myself, but every other member of the related WikiProject. The format of the article follows the format of other featured lists and the old format has been removed from the article since January. You have been nothing but disruptive on this project and that talk page, revert warring and being blocked for acting like a previously banned editor (with your only saving grace being someone unblocking you after technical evidence supported you being unrelated to the banned editor). Let me make this very clear, you are not going to get consensus to change it back to the previous format where there is 300 less references, original research and violations of BLP. — Moe ε 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential Edit War at Konjac

A user at 114.164.204.239 has continually removed information from the article on Konjac (specifically removing "devil's tongue" and "snake palm" as alternate names for the plant) citing that these terms are offensive in his/her language. We have been talking about it briefly on User talk:114.164.204.239 and User talk:jhanCRUSH and I have tried to explain that the information is factual, sourced, and not at all offensive in English, and as such should remain in the article. Any help or mediation anyone could provide would be much appreciated. --jhanCRUSH 08:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If its somethings name that has been used for a long number of years then there is nothing that the IP can do. If he continues give him warns and then he might stop.  rdunnPLIB  10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you say that the information is sourced, I did not see any inline citations for this. Maybe it's in some source used somewhere else, or maybe it has changed with all the reverting, but adding one or two inline citations would help. Then we can explain that the information is factually accurate and ask him to provide evidence if he thinks it is incorrect. If the removal of this information is based solely on the fact that he doesn't like it and thinks that it is offensive, then we need to explain to him about WP:NOTCENSORED. There is already a link on his talk page about it, but we'll need a bit of a detailed explanation if we want to make him see sense. I don't think just giving warnings without first properly explaining what he's doing wrong is going to help btw. Chamal ^talk 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

move page

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am pretty new and require some assistance. Here we have 2 pages the same but with different names. The Rhydfelen one [[12]] needs to re-direct to the Gartholwg one. [[13]] Thanks for your help. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i have added this to the talk page. [[14]] Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, taking a look at both pages, Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen and Ysgol Gyfun Gartholwg, there seems to be a dispute in their histories as to what to call it. They are obviousl the same thing so, yes, one does have to go. However it is not clear to me which is the current name. Rhydfelen says the name is Gartholwg from 2006-2009. DOes the 2009 imply that the name has been changed back to Rhydfelen? Gartholwg states that the former name is Rhydfelen. I noticed on the talk page it mentioned that there is a vote on March 25 and the user stated that the name is currently Rhydfelen until then. Though we would probably have a definitive answer. Meanwhile I think the article that should stay is the Rhydfelen one because it is much older. I or any other admin can always move it later and change the redirect, but for now get what you need off Gartholwg to inject into Rhydfelen. Valley2city^‽ 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All thats different is that Rhydfelen is in some places where Gartholwg is not (and vice versa) so you should just redirect for now.  rdunnPLIB  15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A brief history for you. The school was called Rhydfelen but when it went into dis-repair a new school was built and in 2006 the old school closed and pupils and teachers moved to the new school. The name of the new school is Gartholwg as it is 2 miles from Rhydfelen village and in the village of Gartholwg. Staff and pupils have been challenging the name change ever since and on the 25th the council may re-consider. The school website, school signage (see photos) and headed paper is Gartholwg. However the school uniform still has the Rhydfelen badge as it has not been updated yet. However both pages are identical and one of them needs to go. I don't mind which for now as the name can be sorted at a later date. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

redirect Rhydfelen to Gartholwg then for now and if it changes later just swap the text (with aproproate alterations)  rdunnPLIB  15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

done it for you.  rdunnPLIB  16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your time and help. I know this is a big ask but could you put the page on your watch list as it has potential for an edit war. I am just happy to have one article. Personally I would love to keep the old name but its impossible to walk past the school every day and not notice the big school sign giving its name as "Gartholwg". Anyway one way or another hopefully it will get resolved on the 25th. Thanks Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Faggots (novel) → Faggots

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, WP:RM or talk page.

There is AFAIK nothing called "Faggots" other than the novel. Normally we would locate the article at its proper name and include a hat note. Can someone please effect this or in the alternative explain why not? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like it may be a controversial move, so you should probably go through the proper requested move channels and start a discussion and see where consensus leads. See WP:RM.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be controversial. I don't see any to-do over the title on the article's talk page. I've moved the page. — Dan | talk 02:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A look through Faggot, which Faggots redirects to, would seem to indicate that there are several articles a person may be looking for when searching by that term. A few I would think are more known than the novel. Is there a reason you don't think the others are valid? and why is this on AN? --Onorem♠Dil 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was on AN because the people at the blacklist sent me here. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging as {{resolved}}, this is the wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let anyone reading here know, I've opened a discussion about the proper state of these pages at Talk:Faggots#Requested move. Anyone with an interest in the matter is encouraged to comment there. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Block check please

Hi everyone,

I blocked Jeffrey Huntley (talk · contribs) earlier today for 24 hours for disruptive editing, and he has suggested that I am not acting impartially. I will summarise the case here, and invite other admins to review whether I was correct in issuing the block and to modify the block if required.

Examples of user conduct

• Repeated addition of original research to ejaculation article[15][16]
• Repeated addition of silly, unreferenced information to the Thom Yorke article[17][18][19][20]
• POV edits to Freddy Mercury[21]
• Flippant accusations of vandalism[22][23][24]
• Edit summary dismissing warning messages[25]
• Creating tenuous redirect Oldy->Gary Oldman[26]

Full disclosure by User:Papa November

My first contact with this user was through his edits to Thom Yorke. Although I have not made any significant contributions to the article, I have been a long time contributor to other articles about Radiohead (Yorke is the lead singer of the band). I reverted his edits to the article on three occasions[27][28][29]. I also issued a few warnings to the user about his conduct on the article.[30][31][32] I appreciate that this places me quite close to the line with regard to being uninvolved, and I hope I have not been excessively harsh. However, I don't think I deserved this personal attack.

Warnings from other users

• TJ Spyke (talk · contribs)[33][34]

Thanks in advance for your comments, Papa November (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

worth the block for the "suggestion" alone.  GARDEN  21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block to my eyes, especially for the rather blatant PAs in his post-block comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day Mayhem 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Hi folks, just a reminder of the upcoming usual chaos and fun. Please let's get all hands on board for this expected repeat of vandalism and hoaxes. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... This is not an invitation to the admin corp to indulge in such things... is it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Geez how beansy. If you hadn't said anything I bet no one would've remembered. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• God, it comes around fast. Seems to be the only holiday Wikipedia actually observes... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Are you kidding? It's the one day all kinds of vandals come out of the wood works for a bit of holiday fun and the same day administrators are temporarily blinded by silliness. :p Nobody's forgetting about April 1.. Although, I don't see much a reason to start a thread with impending silliness being 2 weeks away from now. — Moe ε 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for reminding me! I always thought of it too late. but I shan't be late this year... MWUHUHAHA! — Edokter • Talk • 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reminder! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• You forgot to mention when it is? =-O — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pedro thy master

Resolved

 – Seems to be in good faith. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) seems to be an impersonation of Wikipedia administrator User:Pedro given that "Pedro" exists in the users name. Could somebody please take a look?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many things on this earth named Pedro, and while not disagreeing with the principle that our Pedro deserves a legion of adoring meatpuppets, the fact that this user's contributions have been entirely constructive, and entirely limited to Two and a half men, mean that they are likely unrelated. Skomorokh 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The user's talkpage reveals he is responsible for the creation of an A7-failing article on Pedro Negrin, who would seem a more likely candidate to pin the equivalence relation to (admins can confirm). Skomorokh 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was in Spanish – someone more fluent than me can work out what it said:

Deleted article
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Pedro Negrin Pedro Jose Negrin Ruiz nacio en Venezuela, en el estado Vargas, en la ciudad de la Guaira, el 2 de Febrero de 1954. Crecio, estuvo en la fuerza armada venezolana por varios años entrenando. Se caso con Eros Maximiliana Lezama Viloria y tuvieron tres hijas y un hijo, llego al rango de almirante y unos años despues se retiro y vive tranquilo en Venezuela. Juventud Pedro Negrin fue el hijo de Juan Negrin y Estrella Ruiz, tiene un hermano llamado Juan y dos hermanas llamadas Estrella y Maria Ramona, fue el menor de los cuatro. Pedro y su familia son de origenes españoles. Vivio en la ciudad de la Guaira por la mayoria de su juventud jugando varios deportes como el futbol beisbol y otros deportes tipicos del estado. Fue a la escuela Juan Aranaga del primero al cuarto grado y lo que quedo de primaria en la escuela quaitamacuto salio con buenas notas. Armada Entro a la navalescuela
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

 – iridescent 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the beginning of a bio--Pedro was born in 1954 in Venezuela...the next section discusses his youth and his siblings, and the last section says that he joined the navy. (This is loosely translated, of course; my Spanish is not very good, but I can recognize a few of the words from my Spanish 1121 class last semester.) I doubt that anything priceless was lost when it was speedied. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Venezuelan Naval Attache to the US, according to the State Department website. – iridescent 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he *is* a rear-admiral, and holds a diplomatic post; it's possible that there is some notability, although there's nothing in the deleted article to indicate it. In any case, there is no indication that there is any problem with the user name, and we do have users with similar usernames (User:Hibernian and User:Hiberniantears; User:Mastcell and User:MastCell). How about slapping a nice big {{resolved}} template on this and calling it a night? Horologium (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon kindly notified me of this thread, but I concur with Skomorokh that there are many things called Pedro ,so this is not an impersonation but indeed article related. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have looked at some of the contributions, it does seem like a good faith editor. I guess I was wrong. Maybe you can't just judge by the username, but their edits as well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

question about how to get a spurious article deleted

Apologies if this is a stupid question -- the newly created article Inmont is a word-for-word copy of the article Lundbeck, and there is no rationale whatsoever for relating it to the name "Inmont". Surely there must be a way to speedy something like that, but it doesn't seem to fit any of the categories. Any suggestions? (There isn't anything sensible to redirect it to, as far as I can tell.) The creator has not responded to a query. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyright infringement of Wikipedia, I could have deleted it under test page or just general housekeeping. I could see no reason to keep the page as is. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User talk:Jennavecia

Last month I noticed that after her departure, she fully protected her talk page. While I understood it at the time, I feel it needs to be removed. Not just because she continues to edit, but because there is no reason to leave it fully protected. I considered a standard request, but decided it would not give this issue the attention it deserves (a conversation as opposed to a single admin). Synergy 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If one keeps editing, one surely needs an open talk page... Majorly talk 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This request probably should have been done via email as I know Jennavecia is a reasonable person. That said, I do agree that the talk page needs to be unprotected. Just the other day I needed to post to her talk page regarding a edit she had made and found it to be locked (yes, I could have edited through it, but I didn't). Synergy, maybe you can send her a email? Tiptoety ^talk 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt she wants to hear from me, but I can try. Synergy 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the e-mail, so we can only wait to hear her opinion. Although, since she is no longer an admin, she possibly won't be the one to unprotect (just a reminder). Synergy 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would have to agree here, full protection of the page is not appropriate. Users may be looking for information about her admin actions long after her retirement, and I'm sure there's helpful folks watching who can respond. –xeno (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Retirement and page protection don't go together, we just pretend they do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with Synergy. I'm not a fan of protecting retired users' talk pages in general, but an active editor should be easily-contactable. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• For reference, Jennavecia was occasionally a little too keen on fully protecting her pages. I concur with the reasons given above to unprotect. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boo hoo, you couldn't edit my subpage. Tragic. Maybe my next edit, whenever I decide to make it, can be to one of your subpages, because it's so necessary.

Anyway, for the record, one edit in several weeks is not "continued editing", it's an edit. So go ahead and follow the policy to the letter, but any edits to my talk page will go straight from ignored to archived. If you have a question about a past admin action of mine, use your imagination or email me. I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap. The only message that needs to be there is the one that's there now. لennavecia 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a subpage, its a talk page... And as for your edits: Any editing after retirement is continued editing. I wont hold a semantic debate on how many edits constitute as "continued editing" since you should either stay retired, or come back and help out again. Synergy 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Jennavecia... If you are editing, any user may wish to discuss things with you. They might not wish to give you their email address, or don't have one. You are free to remove their messages, but good faith editors should be able to contact each other whenever possible (eg. when the page is not currently being abused). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap"? That's a stunning statement coming from anyone, much less a long-time editor and former admin. I would love if my talk page didn't collect comments from the people who go into AfD with the idea that I'm a censor attempting to force the deletion of their book on the way that Alien Xray Satellites Are Controlling Our Brains, and the vandals who hate me reverting them, but I don't have the admin tools to force them to leave me alone - nor do I want them. In any case, anyone who is editing needs to be contactable via his or her talk page, period. Not wanting to see comments from people on your talk page isn't a good reason to protect it. Anyway, if we're going to be protecting anything, it should be BLPs. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After she !voted in Bugs' RfA, I also noticed the fully protected talk page and intended to email her about it, but got pulled out of town until now due to a death in the family. When she was an active admin, I very much enjoyed Jennavecia's startlingly clear ability to speak the truth, however "one edit in several weeks" is rather misleading as her contributions history shows 30-odd edits since her final admin action of indefinitely fully protecting her talk page. Kudos to all involved for resolving the issue with a minimum of drama! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jez, admit it, even if the user talk page is unprotected, anyone is free to ignore comments posted to their talk page, which in reality is the same thing as fully protected. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

the wider issue of fully protected user talk pages

Does anyone want to search for User talk pages that have {{retired}} (or a variant) and are fully protected? Skomorokh 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

eh, a project for a bored admin to poke thru: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AProtectedPages&namespace=3&type=edit&level=sysop&indefonly=1&sizetype=min&size=&limit=5000 some of these are indef blocked users so they pages can be deleted per CAT:TEMP. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB limits the list it downloads of protected user talk pages to 25000. But for grins I'll look at the intersection of those 25K with retired, semiretired, and unretired.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, AWB is picking up all users, not just ones with protected talk pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any policy or common sense reason that many of these pages are protected - perhaps I'm missing something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't really get it either. –xeno (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, until a few months ago when the block option was added, there was no way to prevent a blocked registered user from editing their talk page except protecting it. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but wouldn't that normally be set with an expiry? And if not, because the user is indef'd, shouldn't their page be in CAT:TEMP and thus eventually deleted? Inconsistent admin work, this! Someone isn't doing their job. Cancel the Christmas Winter holiday bonuses! –xeno (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy has come to my rescue, and AWB is working like a champ now. {{retired}} has just 32 matches. I've posted that list here. I'll look at variants in a moment -- real life may slow that down a bit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are only semi'd and in the case of certain users, warranted. Can you drill down to just full-prot? –xeno (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reedy offered to set that up for me, and I thought with just 32 we could look at each of them without putting him to that trouble. On the other hand, I'm wondering if we should be thinking about reviewing all of the user talk pages that are fully edit protected (no idea how many there are -- there are 7286 with some form of protection (semi/full, edit/move)). If we think that's worthwhile, I'll drop a note to Reedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Xeno, Reedy is already on it. I told him no emergency here, but he thinks it's very doable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding/deleting those pages is rather pointless work, it's not like we need room or anything. John Reaves 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For me the bigger concern are the talk pages that are indefinitely fully edit protected without an urgent need to be protected. Especially if the editor involved still edits (or could, if they so chose) once in a while.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point John. @Fabric, perhaps a query to find if any of the full protected talk pages have active editors. –xeno (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest update. Once again, Reedy has come through. (Xeno was hoping candy would be involved, but that's a different story). The bad news, besides the lack of candy, is that there are 5480 fully protected user talk pages. Picking one at random to check that the list was generated correctly led me to Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users. If we aren't worried about reviewing these pages, we could eliminate 1200 from the list, bringing it down to 4280. I'm currently looking at weeding out anyone in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, and will report back when I get that number. Also, any thoughts on subcategories of Category:Wikipedia blocking that could be excluded?

I've run the list excluding most of the categories at Category:Wikipedia blocking (and am truly stunned that we have 63,284 suspected sockpuppets). The list is down to 2934, but I see that a number of items on the list are archives. I'll see what I can do to efficiently remove those pages from the list. As to Xeno's suggestion of looking only at active editors, I haven't found a way to get that info efficiently yet. I was hoping that Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive would be inspiring, but it looks like the edit dates are picked up by a bot.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is down to 1621 now that the protected subpages are gone. Several users I checked at random are blocked users who aren't in Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users. I'm not sure how to eliminate which ones are blocked users who aren't listed at Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users -- that might be a job for a bot. Also, I'm not feeling like we have a consensus on which non-blocked talk pages should be unblocked. Wikipedia:Protection policy isn't as clear as I'd like, but my gut interpretation is that unless there's been a problem with vandalism, the page should be unprotected. However, it might be wise to watch list any pages we unprotect, especially if the editor only edits sporadically.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one is interested in discussing the issue further, I'll deleted the list from my sandbox. I can always regenerate it if some consensus on what to do happens.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone said earlier much of this is probably unnecessary busywork, I think the only time a talk page should absolutely not be fully protected is when the user is/was an administrator as people may want to post questions about their administrative actions. –xeno (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like User talk:AirFrancerevived should be deleted. It makes no sense to have it full protected. A lot of the pages on the list should be speedied, but I obviously can't tag them. Enigma^msg 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following pages contain {{retired}} and are indefinitely full-protected (to answer the original question):

• User talk:Matilda
• User talk:Shalom_Yechiel
• User talk:The_Prince_of_Darkness
• User talk:Devraj5000
• User talk:Milk's_Favorite_Cookie
• User talk:JiFish
• User talk:Kwork
• User talk:Bnefriends
• User talk:AL2TB
• User talk:Tv145033
• User talk:Littleteddy
• User talk:Dabby
• User talk:Redrocket
• User talk:Prima_Facist

Mr.Z-man 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And the following pages are are indefinitely full-protected, of users not currently blocked, with at least one edit this month, excluding redirects:

• User talk:JiFish
• User talk:Neskaya
• User talk:Ντμίτρι These three unprotected by –xeno (talk)
• User talk:Cydebot
• User talk:Rockyobody

Mr.Z-man 06:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the ones I've struck. CydeBot's page has pretty clear instructions to leave messages for Cyde, so I'll leave that up to wider opinions. Rocky hasn't edited since his page was protected, I still don't think the protection is appropriate though. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if an editor claims to have retired, that's still not a good reason to have their talk page fully-protected. There are very few examples where talk pages should be full protected. Archives and redirects would make sense. Most of the rest? No. Enigma^msg 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, User talk:Mamaluigibob is another one that should be deleted, not full protected. Enigma^msg 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

As many of you probably know, Special:NewPages contains a list of all Wikipedia articles created within the last 31 days. Many editors patrol the front end of the backlog, looking for immediately vandalism, spam, or copyright violations to nominate for speedy or uncontroversial deletion. However, the back end of the backlog is not as well covered, as one administrator, User:DragonflySixtyseven, has had to handle the backlog pretty much by himself, from what I can tell, with help from a few other editors. Currently, the backlog can only stretch up to 31 days. After 31 days, it falls off the edge of the backlog and is likely not seen again for a long long time. Those articles are prime locations to keep BLP and other violations, so we have to make sure to check all of them. Luckily, we have not had articles disappear for a while now, but we are getting pretty close; there is often less than 24 hours left in the "buffer" - the time before the pages start to fall off. If Dragonfly disappears for even one day, the entire prospect of monitoring New Pages is useless, and dozens of bad pages will be able to able to fly right through.

Right now, the backlog at New Page Patrolling shows quite well why something like Flagged Revisions would never work. Unless people are willing to put in some serious effort, all it will do is build a giant backlog. So, come one, do you part. Please help out. If you are interested, add

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/patrollinks.js');

to your monobook.js (or similar) page and come help out. It doesn't have to be a lot of help, but every page you patrol helps forestall another disaster. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is that script supposed to do? John Reaves 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just patrolled about 40 articles with NewPageWatcher. Hopefully that helps. On a side note, I wonder how many articles would need to be patrolled per day to keep up with the new articles being created. That would be nice to see some stats on that. MuZemike 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any way to keep up with the creation of new articles. I just spent more than an hour on the back end of the list, and I only managed to mark about 10 as patrolled. A few were obviously good articles and just needed the box to be clicked; but two turned out to be copyvios, one needed speedy tagging as not asserting significance, and one I nominated at AfD. What with all the Googling, tagging, and AfDing involved, we'd need an army of new-page patrollers to adequately handle the volume. Deor (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages definitely slip through, but every little bit helps. When the ability to mark new pages as patrolled was introduced, we notice a big drop in the pages at WP:DEP, especially the speediable pages. My guess is that marking pages as patrolled helped avoid duplicate efforts, so more pages got a glance before showing up on the DEP list. Now if we could just convince some of the more enthusiast patrollers not to speedy every article they see within a minute of creation... :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried my hand at patrolling for a while when the feature was first enabled, and my impression is that for every inappropriate speedy tag there was a case of someone clicking "patrolled" without checking for copyvio (admittedly, a particular bugbear of mine) or really taking much of a look at the article for other problems. Speedy tagging at NPP comes in for a lot of criticism, but I'd like to see an in-depth study of NPP practices as a whole—how many articles get speedy tags that are rejected, how many get speedy tags that result in deletion, how many are "passed" but later have to be deleted anyway, and so forth. I think that part of the problem is that, other than merely going on to the next article in the list whenever one is unsure about an article, db-tagging and just clicking "patrolled" are the two easiest things to do. Adding unsourced, notability, and other "problem" tags is (a little bit) harder, and actually investigating for copyvios, verification, etc., is hardest of all. Deor (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does someone want to whip up a page that tracks unpatrolled articles in the category Category:Living people or with bio-stubs? I'd be willing to put a few hours in. Skomorokh 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's probably not many with categories or any type of classification; they're likely to be orphans. I would just scroll through looking for titles that look like names. John Reaves 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the articles that have dropped off the newpages list because of time and inattention. Am I correct in assuming these are still detectable as "unpatrolled"? If my proposed parameters are too narrow, bots tag orphaned and uncategorized articles, which should catch the vast majority not bio-stubbed or categorized as Living people. 01:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, most of the new pages, especially blp's are not categorized or wikilinked at all. The only way to notice them is through the newpages list. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

John Reaves- The script adds "Patrol" links next to the article names on the main page themselves; if you use popups; it makes patrolling much quicker. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up patrolling the back side because it is so unproductive. A lot of the articles there are superficially valid but so trivial that I'm not willing to go to the effort of looking up sources to verify them (e.g., tiny villages in India, subway stations in New York, Slovak soccer players, etc, etc.) I've found that most of the articles I look at, I pass by without marking, unless they have tags that allow me to mark them as patrolled without doing anything. At the front end it's a different story -- I probably mark 2/3 of the articles I look at. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When I patrol, I just take a quick look to make sure the article is not a speedy candidate and move on unless something jumps out and bites me. Copyvios usually have a copy/pasted look and look more like a web page or a piece of spam then an article. Also, corin bot has in the past done a pretty good job finding copyvios but I don't know how well its working now. I don't think its necessary to go on a google hunt for every article one patrols. Have I been too casual about this? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CSBot is pretty good at the really blatant stuff; things you would find quickly with a google; but it's important to no rely only on it: it's not perfect in general and some people do just remove the tags without fixing problems. — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion- we could add a feature to the script in which a person could click on a special Patrol link on Special:Newpages, and if the person does not do anything about the article then it would automatically be marked as patrolled. Or, if the person navigates away from the page, then a prompt would show asking if they want to mark the page as patrolled. The problem is that most people do not bother to click the mark as patrolled link. This would help cut down the backlog. LetsdrinkTea 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What does help is that friendly and twinkle now mark the page as patrolled when you use them to do something with it. I think one of the big problems in the past was that when you add a tag to the page, manually edit it, check talk, history, etc. the patrol link disappears. What would be useful would be a script that adds a "patrol" and a "don't patrol" button to the page. Both buttons remain visible whenever you revisit the page unless you click one or the page is patrolled by somebody else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I've noticed there are typically around 500 pages (after deletions are accounted for) that are created per day, so that would be the number we would have to patrol to keep up with the backlog. --Nn123645 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

500? 1500 is more like it. The current back of the newpages list (one month old, so most speedies and so on should be gone) has a day of over 2000 new pages, a day like February 18th still has way over 1000 new articles, just like February 19th. I have never seen a day with only 500 new articles. Fram (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't too far out of place..

There's been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Antigen_leukocyte_cellular_antibody_test#Test technique, nature of food intolerance where a SPA has been claiming that the company ALCAT (which markets the article's subject test) is behaving quite differently than it actually is. The last such claim was followed by an alteration in the company's website. Just in case that happens again, I'd like to know that at least one admin has sighted it in its current configuration. Thanks in advance.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User Enigmaman

Resolved

 – Anon IP blocked 24 hours --VS ^talk 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Anon user was blocked for 1 day for vandalism by VirtualSteve. No huggle abuse Enigmaman was found. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:59

In the last few days I made several edits to some album articles, as well to some other articles, most of them with well-explained edit summaries and rationale. A while ago User:Enigmaman (edits) reverted all of my recent edits with Huggle, describing them as vandalism, and promptly giving me a warning. I reverted one of his edits on the basis that it was not vandalism. He then gave me another warning, and asked me not to remove a review from the article and adding another review (a move which I clearly explained in the edit summary). I attempted to explain that my edits were not vandalism, and advised him not to use Huggle to revert what are obviously not vandalism. I then proceeded to revert some of his reverts that are absolutely not related to his objection. My comment on his talk page was then deleted by him, he gave me another vandalism warning, and as I was writing this report, reported me for vandalism for this edit, which is a grammatical edit. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you were removing reviews without reason and changing information, again without reason. To be honest, I would have reverted your edits as well and reported you to AIV. I see nothing wrong with what Enigmaman has done or his revisions of this anon user. No Huggle abuse either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:06

*I have informed Enigmaman of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:08

As I have described above, most of my edits have edit summaries. You could check my contributions page yourself. They are clearly explained and clearly NOT vandalism. Moreover, I explained the situation in his talk page and the explanation was deleted and I was reported in AIGV. Extremely bad faith ignorance of the definition of vandalism from the user. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that there was no legitimate justification for removing the other reviews, am I the only one suspicious of this site that's being added and all the "5/5" ratings? Enigma^msg 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly a content dispute issue, and has nothing to do with vandalism. You can go check the site yourself. The site tends like alternative rock bands, which explains the high ratings. But plenty of other sites have given high ratings to those bands. Also, I have explained my reason for the removal of pop reviews, quite reasonably. I'm not sure what your objection is. Please elaborate. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your explanation on why edits like this or this are vandalism. 202.40.139.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

I don't think there is any question that edits like this one are damaging, at the least, and possibly vandalism. I don't know whether you intended to damage articles or did it accidentally, but either way, it cried out for a revert. Enigma^msg 07:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Outright removal of reviews, with the one from Yahoo discribed as "non-contemporary review" is vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:20

Outright removal of reviews would be considered blanking and, yes, vandalism. However, I clearly explained my rationale in the edit summary. In this case, I demonstrated good faith, and if one doubts my intentions, he should question me on my talk page instead of considering it vandalism. Also, in response to Enigmaman - why the hell is the change from "bias" to "antipathy" damaging or vandalism? It is a semantical change, which, if you check the dictionary, is absolutely correct. I'm not sure what Enigmaman's problem is. In my edit summaries, in my response to him, and in this report, I have demonstrated my understanding of Wikipedia policy and have stressed my good faith. If I am a vandal I clearly would not do so. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment :Sampling of the edits in question. Allmusic is an accepted review site on Wikipedia. If you're going to insist on removing them, you have your work cut out for you. Additionally, this report distorted the facts. I was not the only user to revert and/or warn 202.40.139.168. Enigma^msg 07:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Allmusic is not an accepted review site on all Wikipedia album articles. For some genres, Wikipedia standards is to preferably use review sites dedicated to those genres. This remains a content dispute, however. It does not justify your reverts of my content edits using counter-vandalism tools and your deletion of my good-faith response on your talk page. It also does not justify your reverts of my other edits, some of which are completely irrelevant to the topic. I am still waiting for your explanation on why those edits are vandalism. Also, I did not distort any facts. Another user did warn me - I never said you were the only one. However, I have responded to him and he has not responded to me. It appears that you have deleted my comment on his talk page as well. May I inquire why? 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to take me to AN/I for daring to revert you is not a "good-faith response" at all. Neither is creating an AN thread accusing me of abuse. As for Allmusic, it is an accepted review site on all album articles that I know of, and removing it is inappropriate. Enigma^msg 07:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You reverted an edit that has a clear edit summary. It may be inappropriate, or damaging, but it is definitely not vandalism. Using Huggle to make such an revert is a misuse of the Huggle tool, and there have been past precedents that misuse of Huggle is reported on the AN/I. It was not a threat, but a justified warning. I created this thread after you removed my response to you on your talk page, displaying extremely bad faith on your part. This thread is to notify administrators who could hopefully resolve the conflict peacefully. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I also call to attention this edit, in which Enigmaman removed my comment on another user's talk page. As far as I know this is considered vandalism. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "...I'll assume your revert to be based on personal disagreement, whereas I'll revert your edit for lack of rationale, and remove the warning you gave me. I'" [sic] also have the responsibility to report you to AN/I for the abuse of a counter-vandalism tool and giving out fraudulent warnings." is a distinct threat, and I reverted it. Reverting your threats would not be considered vandalism under any definition of the term. Enigma^msg 07:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats, vandalism, and not assuming good faith....sorry anon, those are your three stikes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:36

What vandalism? Please point to one edit where I vandalized. Also, I assumed good faith - much better faith than User:Enigmaman. I assumed he made a mistake when he reverted me. I promptly explained to him with all due rationale. As for threats, if you consider my warning a threat, then why are his vandalism warnings not threats? 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not a threat. It was a warning. And there is absolutely no justification for removal of another person's comment on another person's talk page. None at all. If it was a threat or personal attack, then warn me or report me. You don't remove the comment of another user, especially when it's not even directed to you. This is Wikipedia policy, and I expected you to understand that. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"And there is absolutely no justification for removal of another person's comment on another person's talk page. None at all. Even if it is a warning, a personal attack - you don't remove it when it's not related to you. This is Wikipedia policy, and I expected you to understand that." Please make a greater effort to be accurate when citing "Wikipedia policy". Enigma^msg 07:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite one edit? OK, I like this one. Removal of three reviews and a reference. That is classic vandalism and I would have warned you for it myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:44

Please see WP:VANDAL. In particular, this sentence: "..not considered to be vandalism...where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.". It is NOT vandalism when the user has demonstrated his intention to contribute to the article. I demonstrated that intention when I explained my edit in the edit summary, and when I added another review site, which is clearly an attempt at contribution. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't cite me policy, I have been here long enough to know vandalism when I see it. Removing a reference for no reason and something you hadn't done before (so you weren't making an edit again) is vandalism. Pure and simple. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:48

I provided my reason. It was in the edit summary - not the one you cited, which is a revert. When a reason is provided, it is not vandalism. Simple. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"When a reason is provided, it is not vandalism. Simple." That is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Enigma^msg 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible harassment

Good evening. I have a serious problem with user "Bali Ultimate". He appears to be harassing me very severely; he is following every edit I make, commenting when I comment on other people's talk pages, constantly threatening me with various actions under Wikipedia policy, systematically going through to other pages I have edited and making serious edits on them, pursuing anyone who sided with me in a particularly contentious AfD discussion... and it is truly upsetting me in real life. This user refuses to acknowledge my problems; I have tried to discuss this with him, and why I view his behavior this way, but he has been unwilling to listen. I invite you to look at any logs that you would desire to to demonstrate this; mostly, I am looking for an impartial eye on this issue, and some way to resolve this contentiousness. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a single diff. This appears to be retaliation for my seeking to enforce policy and request civility against on going incivility. He is inserting BLP vios into an article about a blog (essentially saying that the McCain campaign was involved in voter fraud in Ohio ("The Motley Moose played a role in breaking a story about the McCain/Palin Presidential Campaign's engagement in alleged absentee-ballot fraud"), original research, and puffery all cited to blogs and non-rs sources. He is reverting the efforts of 3 other editors who have all disagreed with him [35] and ignores talk page consensus on the matter to own an article he authored. He has been the subject of a witiquette complaint today filed by me that, more or less, received a lot of supporting responses from other editors (this all seems like disgruntled retaliation.) [36]. His tone is conssitently about other editors (no one diff does it justice, if you care read the tortured AfD for The Motley Moose here [37] and I have asked him multiple times to focus on content and stop attacking other editors [38] [39] [40]. Yet here we are. After i removed his latest post to my talk page with this edit summary "removes trolling please, go write your term papers or something, and stay off my talk page" [41] (not very nice i admit, but certainly not threatening and beyond bounds) I received this absurd response [42] "No, I'm serious. Your behavior is scaring me, very much, in real life. If you're not going to bring this tension between us to an administrator, then I will. There is no trolling here. I'm a single dad with a toddler- I am telling you, honestly and forthrightly, I feel like you are harassing me." This is so bizarre I want to be crystal clear. I have threatened no one. I never have (anyone disagrees a diff would be nice). I don't care if he's single, has a toddler, or does not. The manner in which his false "you're scaring me" comment is made, immediately followed by this AN/I posting reeks of bad faith wiki-gaming. Do i have complaints about this user? Sure. He doesn't understand wikipedia policy, plays games, canvasses, and the like. These are relevant complaints. His complaint seems to be that I'm a stalker/danger/threat to him? Well, can he provide a diff. I'm begining to think he needs a time out. Bali ultimate (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And then there's this [43] "I feel I am being harassed by user "Bali ultimate"; enough so to disturb my in real life. It is very unsettling, and I would appreciate an administrator's unbiased take on this subject." Again, this is game playing distruption. I have not made a single threat, or anything that could be interpreted as a threat (beyond "i'll tattle to the admins about you") and he's now causing further disruption. This AN/I thread touched on his conduct [44]. This is looking like forum shopping on top of the rest. By the way, it would have been nice to have been informed about this.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh. All I see is Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) going spastic over AFD's that involve blogs and non-notable web-sites, such as,

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jukes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress Matters
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureaucrash (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChallengeYou

You do not need to respond to every AFD statement that is made in opposition to what you have wrote. You have also been removing speedy deletion tags. That can be considered fanatic and potentially disruptive. I do appreciate that you have been courteous and civil in your comments, though. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MIME / file extension mismatches

If anybody's really bored, these should probably be fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=278139336

File moving doesn't work for files like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential impersation of BLP subject

Resolved

 – Impersonator blocked, AFD closed as a bad faith nom with no predjudice to re-nomination based on other concerns. –xeno (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am suspicious of user Rod Dreher (talk · contribs) as a possible impersonator of the subject of the BLP article Rod Dreher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user created the account on 16 March (Log) and its first edit was to nominate the BLP at AfD (Contribs), over 2 years after its creation. Indeed, all edits from this account appear to be related to the deletion of the Rod Dreher article. Need help with the proper avenue for addressing/investigating this. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reporting to WP:UAA could be a good idea. Someone would take appropriate action. ^LeaveSleaves 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually block these on sight and try to contact the real person by email to verify their identity. Considering that he is not higly reputable, though, one could ask them to email [email protected] from a verifiable email address to confirm they are the real Rod Dreher within a reasonable period of time, and block after a while. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request has been made (by someone else) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher 2. Not sure if he has complied. I can reiterate on user talk page. Is CheckUser an appropriate tool to use in this case? KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope ;). And even with his IP we wouldn't be able to do much more than guess where he lives :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to block. He is requesting deletion of an article, that at the time, was full of libel and BLP nightmares. He has every right to come in here, request deletion of an article that was extremely slanderous, and constructively contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree he has the right to come in and request deletion but I would like to be sure that this is the right person and not an impersonator (e.g., someone who previously added libelous content) making a bad faith AfD nomination. If the user can prove he is the article subject in accordance with policy that is in place then I'll endorse deletion, wish him the best, and move on. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am quite disgusted by this. Not only have we slandered the guy, then when the abuse was removed, the removal was reverted by admins. Then when he requests deletion to prevent further slander, people say "tough shit we are keeping it" - and even suggest that he learns how to remove slander by learning wiki rules. Now people want to put in a new hoop that he should confirm his identity, and someone about above actually wants to "block on sight". When will Wikipedians wake up to the fact that it is WRONG for us to have a system that allows people to be slandered, and when subjects are abused, it is OUR FAULT NOT THEIRS, and the onus is on US not THEM to ensure that it will not hapen again. And if we can't do that (which, lacking flags, BLP protection, or realistic quality control) we should remove the article and get out of their lives. Now, will people wake up and take responsibility for this monstrosity we call an encyclopedia. Oh you hard-hearted cruel wikipedians.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear fucking hear. Well said. Should be plastered across Wikipedia. //roux   18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that is my point above. I don't see why he needs to confirm that he is Rod Dreher in this case; he is merely using his account (if it is him) to publically remove this formerly slanderous article. The fact that this was public for four days with no removal is indication that we need flagged revisions and a major overhaul to our BLP policies. And the fact that administrators were reverting to keep this libelous and slanderous content on is even more disturbing. seicer | talk | contribs 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Until editors take responsibility and Wikipedia actually incorporates a system to transform it from a defamation machine to an encyclopaedia, I'd support stubbing and semi-protecting every BLP like this. People need to realise that the important part of the claim "...the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the word "encyclopaedia". At the moment, Wikipedia does not deserve that particularly moniker. GTD 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster: why are you suspicious it's an impersonator? It's 99% likely it's the subject himself. Majorly talk 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's disturbing that instead of following existing guidelines and systems set in to verify proper username usage you are instead using this as a platform to put in your opinion for implementation of new system. It is more than obvious that the editor is claiming to the the person about whom the article is and you say that ignore the COI or possible impersonation and forget even checking if we are dealing with the right person or not? ^LeaveSleaves 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on us to protect those who have no idea their reputations are being destroyed by people hiding behind screen names. Even if this user isn't the subject of the article, the AFD request is still perfectly valid GTD 18:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What COI is there? That he wants his own article deleted because it included slanderous, libelous information? Of course, let's keep that shit up, and let Wikipedia be sued or used as a laughing stock even further by media outlets. seicer | talk | contribs 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The thread isn't about validity of AfD but the that of username in question. Someone should act on confirming if that's the person. Otherwise, if there is agreement that part is really unimportant, mark this resolved and move on. ^LeaveSleaves 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I have no opinion on the deletion other than the issue of whether or not the original nominator is in fact the article subject. With what was posted at the time, there was, and still is, no way of knowing for certain whether or not this is yet another attempt at slandering this guy.

I just re-read WP:SK for the umpteenth time, particularly guideline 2. Though it doesn't explicitly say so, I interpret this to mean that a bad faith AfD nomination should not be closed as such if unrelated editors agree with the deletion. It sounds to me that since quite a number of editors have strong opinions on its deletion (many of which were entered after I originally posted this here), and it appears those editors have no personal connection to the nominator or the article subject, we should let AfD run its course – regardless of what the outcome is – and let the identity issue be resolved separately (if there is one after the AfD is closed). KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Rod Dreher is an impersonator.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WR has several posts regarding this and I've indef'ed the account. seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone blank/delete/etc. the userpage as well? ^LeaveSleaves 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How to get a BLP article deleted, and create a lot of drama in the process (if one were to do such a thing)

Redacted. Wkdewey (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to note here that I've declined the WP:UAA listing for Rod Dreher. Before reading the discussion here I agreed that a "block first, verify later" approach would cause more harm than good. I feel it's plausible it's the real Rod Dreher; this is not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. I did suggest to him that if he intends to continue editing after the deletion debate ends, it would be good to verify his identity. I figure if his request for deletion succeeds, he'll be done.. and if not, he'll probably want to talk to Wikimedia directly, so it probably won't be much of a burden unless he does decide to get involved more deeply. Mangojuice^talk 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you forgot the all important intermediate step, that being "4. ???" –xeno (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that he's editing again, check out Special:Contributions/Rod Dreher. Commenting about ED and other BADSITES on Jimbo's talk page? Are the other edits really characteristic of a professional journalist, either? (that's who the article subject is, remember) Thisreally deserves a second look. Impersonation is a BLP violation too. 140.247.241.206 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To date, Jimbo talk comments amount to 1 short blowing off steam comment [45] on something else, 2 mins before posting a demand for an apology [46]. Rd232 ^talk 15:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The contributions were not definitive proof, I know, but the account has now been indeffed after several people apparently received email from the real Rod Dreher. 140.247.252.116 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean, the system worked this time? Who would have thunk it? At any rate, now that the identity issue appears to be resolved, I still don't agree with the article's SK per my remarks above but I guess if there truly is a strong consensus to delete due to BLP violations someone will re-nominate it. I guess I can also understand the need for a "clean" AfD discussion that doesn't factor in the article subject's wishes (or in this case, the wishes of someone impersonating the article subject). Oh well, with that out of the way I have no opinion on the other issues brought up in the AfD, wish the real Rod Dreher the best, and am moving on. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a good spot to review Lessons Learned?

This might happen again. Possible ways to prevent it:

1. Don't let an editor with the user name of the BLP propose an AfD without verification of that user name first. Otherwise, sympathy for the BLP can interfere with the judgment of the AfD participants.
2. Don't wait to block an editor with the user name of a BLP. Block first, then let the person clear the name with the WP office. Block before the editor does damage to the BLP's reputation. This doesn't need to be spelled out. In order not to be too rough on a real notable person who opens an account under his or her own name, when the block is done it should be done very, very politely, perhaps with a super polite template. No harm in that. That's all I can think of. Perhaps other people have ideas. -- Noroton (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I'd move on, but I couldn't pass this up. I'm going to start a discussion at the policy village pump, which is where I think this discussion belongs. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about: 1. Don't write libelous tabloid refuse on a living person's biography; 2. Don't revert attempts to remove said libelous tabloid refuse; 3. Don't call foul on the complainer when they bring forth truthful accusations of libelous tabloid refuse. seicer | talk | contribs 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If we could just manage to do seicer's #2, that would be a good start. As it stands, any casual (anonymous) editor's good-faith effort to fix sewage dumps in BLP articles get reverted as vandalism (!) because everyone knows that IPs removing large blocks of text can only be vandals. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP - Reminder

I just cleared a huge backlog at WP:RFPP, dating back to 15:00 (UTC) yesterday. I'd appreciate it if all admins who are able to could keep an eye on RFPP at most times, because it's quite annoying for users to see that their requests are ignored for such a long time. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All admins should make Template:Admin_dashboard their homepage. ;) --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coolness! I hadn't know about this template. Me like.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A CSD

I'm wondering what to do at this article. The subject passes WP:MUSIC (had one of their songs placed in rotation on radio), but the article is clearly not in a shape to keep. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think it passes WP:MUSIC, remove the speedy tag. Then either fix the article yourself, or slap on any needed maintenance tags. Poor quality writing isn't a deletion reason, and hopefully never will be.

In fact, I'll remove the speedy tag right now. I'm not convinced it passes WP:MUSIC, but there are definitely claims of importance.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I can't verify a single claim in the article through a gsearch. Given the creator's name, I suspect it's a case of wishful thinking. :( Prod applied, but a G3 speedy wouldn't break my heart.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd think a song that was claimed to be downloaded over 250,000 times would have 1 Google link right? Definite hoax/non-notable. I'm going to be bold and mark it for CSD, it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC at all. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the article's been removed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

File moving disabled

Per bugzilla:18033, File moving and renaming is temporarily disabled since I was breaking a lot of files in a bad way, I'll post here again when Brion re-enables. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Resolved

We have a horrible backlog. Can we get an admin to start mopping? Mucho gracias -- §hawnhath 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like aisle 4 has been cleaned up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User_degree/MIB page

Resolved

Can someone please update the User_degree/MIB page to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_International_Business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TooHuge (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TooHuge (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:24.73.17.181

I was looking at the log and noticed that 24.73.17.181 was notified by being blocked for 24hrs by Esanchez7587 but was blocked for 1 month without notification by Ryulong. Can someone please explain this. --§hawnhath 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ryulong would probably be a good place to ask first. --Onorem♠Dil 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

While it's considered a "best practice", block notices are not mandatory. If the IP tries to edit, they will still receive the standard mediawiki block notice that tells them how long they are blocked for. –xeno (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesnt seem to want to reply on his talk page. §hawnhath 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward. He'd been blocked and then started spewing obscenities. We don't have much patience for that, so we sent the IP on a short vacation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Terry's Chocolate Orange

talk to me 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 – Woody has banished the gremlin... for now--Fabrictramp

This is driving me crazy. (Short trip, today). Talk:Terry's Chocolate Orange is showing up on the CSD list, but I can't find anything in the page that is causing this. I'd appreciate a spot of help with it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I purged the page and I can't see it in Cat:CSD anymore? Is it still there for you? Woody (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just refreshed again, and now it's gone. Whew! I'm scratching my head, though, because I'd already tried purging Cat:CSD twice. Must be gremlins at work... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to purge the Chocolate orange page, then the CSD page. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know for next time.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Tigeroo

Resolved

 – Ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been disclosed to me that since I let Tigeroo (talk · contribs · logs) out of an indef block, he made exactly the same edit as he had while evading his block. He has also ruffled some of the same feathers as before.

I have reblocked him, and now I think it's time that we consider, given this user's history, that he has exhausted the community's patience and cannot reform. Is there support for a community ban? Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Although I've had a brief look at the block log among other things, if you (or someone else) could provide a summary of the history (with links/diffs), that would help answer the question more definitely. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - diffs above, combined with the diffs presented by Daniel Case (and link by EdJohnston) below, reveal more than enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - why waste our time? //roux   21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On what basis were they unblocked - if they are violating the terms then the answer is fairly obvious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly this condition, which he accepted. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per Case. THF (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. I've had a brief look into this. Abusing multiple accounts once is bad enough. But to be unblocked SEVERAL TIMES and repeatedly violate WP:SOCK shows that this editor has no intention of playing by the rules. This kind of disruption is probably the worst when it comes to time wasting. A ban is definitely warranted. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Exhausted community patience, continued WP:SOCK violations. — neuro^(talk) 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - after I looked at the many unblock dialogs in User talk:Tigeroo/Archive 2 in which we usually hear that the problem is someone else's fault, or a misunderstanding by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Thegryseone

Currently, User:Thegryseone is blocked indefinitely. His talk page says that this is because his account is only being used for vandalism but his edit history says otherwise. I tried contacting the blocking admin, NawlinWiki to change this to something more reasonable (like three days or a week) but I've gotten no response. I shouldn't have to go into detail about why an indefinite block is inappropriate for what seems like an isolated case of atê, right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that it's more for abusing other editors. (The block summary supports this). This, this, and edit summaries like this would have triggered it.

I wouldn't have indef'd, but I'm way easier on first blocks than most admins. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know a block was in order, but an indefinate length is horribly unjustified. Remember, blocks are to prevent future damage, not to punish editors. Can someone please change this or should I go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite is not equal to infinite, users can request unblocks later to have the block time adjusted. As far as going to ArbCom, it seems like your jumping the gun a bit here. If the user wants to be unblocked he should either use {{unblock}}, join #wikipedia-en-unblocks on freenode, or email unblock-l. —Nn123645 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

After skimming over the talkpage and his recent contribs I can't see a reason why he shouldn't be indef blocked. —Nn123645 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the talk page was protected indefinitely as well. Considering that the vandalism was done in anger, it's very likely that the user has calmed down since then. I'm concerned that the user may get forgotten without some sort of time limit to either the block or the talk page protection. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocking a long-term editor (who's contributed since 2007 and never been blocked) for a 1hr outburst of anger as a "vandalism-only account" seems neither fair nor constructive for WP; I'm not sure the blocking admin's "skimming" the contribs did the editor justice. Anyway I've added a ref to unblock-l on the talkpage. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First off I'd like to point out that I'm not an administrator and did not not make the block. After looking at all of the users contribs I can say that a vandalism only account as a rationale for blocking shouldn't apply. When I wrote my previous reply I was unaware that the user's contribs went that far back; you are correct in the fact that the user does have several hundred constructive contribs. Though I do notice by looking through the contribs that this user has had some incivility problems in the past, though on the majority of the user's discussions he is civil and constructive. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagalog use in EN Wikipedia

thumb|180px|left Secaundis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ramz Trinidad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are exchanging Tagalog communications on their talkpages, especially in articles related to Sta. Maria, Bulacan.

Per the "Good practice" section in WP:TALK, in particular I gave Secaundis a uw-english tag and he responded on my talk page with an excuse that basically said he is not fluent in English, despite the fact that he has simple4 and EN-3 boxes on his userpage. I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia.

I suggested he take his Tagalog to the TL Wikipedia, but he responded to me in Tagalog, which like any other foreign languages, is not allowed here-unless there's translations (which he did not give). Both their talkpages are essentially chatboxes. I'm simply following WP:TALK protocols, any admin who cares to help, please reprimand them, especially Secaundis for his apparent defiance. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a lack of English fluency is an excuse to liberally type in any other language here in the EN wikipedia. Have you ever edited a Wikipedia in a language you aren't fluent in? In most of them, there are people who are happy to help you out, happy to answer questions in English. Like WP:TALK, WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline. You shouldn't lecture people about not abiding by one guideline, while you disregard another. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both users have been warned with std template. Will keep an eye and see what they do/answer afterwards. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that talking in English is a good practice, and a courtesy. However this is not mandatory (especially in user talks). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. If they have insufficient grasp of English, then they're not going to be useful here - and their userboxes are inconsistent with that claim, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a smart idea to let them converse in Tagalog. WTF? Let them? Honestly, that sounds awfully xenophobic. Mind you, that's a talk page guideline...not even a user talk page-specific guideline, but a general one. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not xenophobic, some of my best friends are Tagalogs ;-) Sorry, all I'm saying is that non-transparent communication is not a good idea, but moreover, if they can't communicate in English, then what are they involved in an English encyclopedia-writing project for? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right- we're the English Wikipedia; it's not xenophobic for us to request conversations take place in English, any more than it would be for the Tagalog Wikipedia to prefer communicating in Tagalog. I can't see a polite but firm request (which {{uw-english}} is, despite the name) being out of bounds. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I don't think this is the first time someone has been rapped for fully speaking other tongues in the EN site....(and now back to your regular wikiediting) --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines (the Philippines Wikiproject). Someone there could tell you what the exchange is all about. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I first took notice of those two when the Sta. Maria articles were posted for discussion. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They are at it again. User:Secaundis posted this in his pal's talk page, despite being admonished beforehand. I asked a Tagalog speaking friend and she pointed to the use four-letter words and chatting. They are obviously two young kids (Secaundis admits to be 14 y/o in his page, treating WP as a social network. Barring any guidelines on the contrary I'm inclined on issuing both a strong cease-and-desist notice to both. It is not being xenophobic as mentioned above but furthering the project. These two kids are making a mockery of the system. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DAMN IT, I thought we already settled this! So that guy lied to me when he said he will speak English. I'm sorry for going PA-ish on this, but they're both hypocrites by posting EN userboxes when they don't even practice it here that much. And to think Secaundis is speaking english in the SM City Tungko AFD.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A random sampling of each user's article edits shows only good faith edits. I don't see anything wrong with them communicating to each other in their native tongue. The Good Practice Guideline regarding English language use on talk pages says "it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages." So this is not a blockable offense. If they are not capable of providing translations, maybe we can find a translator. Kingturtle (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kingturtle here. Unless there's evidence they are using another language to conceal details about what they are discussing or using wikipedia as a social network to an extent that is normally likely to result in action even if in English then provided it only occurs on user talk pages let them be. In other words it's the content that matters not the language. Why people need to be so concerned about what others are saying, I do not know. P.S. I'm somewhat doubtful the Tagalog wikipedia is this anal about people who speak in English or something else on user talkpages Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the Tagalog Wikipedia is not that anal pertaining to discussions taking place between people in personal correspondence. Admittedly, while virtually all Tagalog Wikipedia contributors are, in one way or another, bilingual or multilingual, English text is always italicized on public talk, while not so in private talk.

I'm a bit surprised that we're making a mountain out of a molehill with this problem. Seeing the edits of both users I highly doubt they would use Tagalog communication to hide secret activities, and that their contributions are valid even with Secaundis' lack of fluency in English. We can't expect Wikipedians to be fluent in English on the fly. However, when it comes to the field of public correspondence, that is when we must switch languages to the language of the majority (English). If people are so concerned with the contents of their discussions, then feel free to ask a Filipino Wikipedian to translate the contents to English. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Announcing the Abuse Filter

Hi all,

After about six months' waiting, I've finally activated the AbuseFilter extension on enwiki!

In brief, the Abuse Filter allows automated heuristics to be run against every edit. It's designed as an anti-vandalism tool for very simple and/or pattern based vandalism.

PLEASE do not activate a filter with any action other than flagging without testing it first with just flagging enabled. — Werdna • talk 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter § -modify right (moved from AN)

 – — Jake Wartenberg 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The filter seems to have gone nuts. Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives is growing fast. I'm currently restricted being one of those false positives so someone should turn this off or something. jbolden1517^Talk 01:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I got that message as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It was filter 58 that got me. I can't do anything about it though for the same reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conti has just indicated the filter has been disabled. PhilKnight (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NawlinWiki accidentally modified a filter such that it tiggered on everything. This deautoconfirmed about 200 users, and blocked their edits (all edits from 1:00 to 1:02UTC). They have all been reautoconfirmed. Prodego ^talk 01:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing that the blocked edits didn't include your edits to fix the filter. Thanks for cleaning this up. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have initiated a discussion here which seeks to require on-wiki consensus prior to setting a filter to disallow or revoke groups. Comments are invited. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request review of page move decision

Hi. I recently closed a discussion at Talk:Dio (band), and I moved the article from Dio to Dio (band), and Dio (disambiguation) to Dio. My choice to close the discussion as I did has been questioned, so I'm posting here for review. Please let me know if my action seems inconsistent with our policies, or with good sense. Thanks in advance for any feedback. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me: significant disagreement leads to the conclusion that there is no primary usage. –xeno (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked indef

Resolved

 – Block expiry set. –xeno (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[47] This IP has been blocked for ever and ever (amen) for "attempted hack" - I can't find any in the contributions, and there's nothing about it on the talkpage, so I'm presuming it's admin-only deleted material... but I think someone ought to check that it's serious enough for such a harsh block on an IP. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar... Comcast IP address. Should not be indef imo. –xeno (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the deleted contribs. It was probably an email password request. I'll drop Seicer a note of this thread, but the IP should be unblocked anyway. IP blocks for serious vandalism should never be based on the severity of their vandalism - only the estimated time until reassignment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was until I could get home and check it out further (I was on the road with my laptop and didn't have time to deal with it). I believe this is a user I've interacted with before -- part of an ongoing socking/IP issue. Thanks for bringing this up on my talk page first, rather than trying to discuss this on my talk page (sarcasm intended). I appreciate it. _{unblocked the IP address, BTW.}seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be sarcastic. Your talk page says at the top that you are retired, which hardly encourages editors to raise issues there. And the discussion here with multiple eyes appeared to be helpful. Jonathunder (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well... It doesn't anymore, but when it "did" there was a line through the re bit so it was a statement that the editor was tired... Can we just put this down to a little breakdown in communication (including why an ip addy was indef'd in the first place)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP hardblocked for a month, it's strangely stable. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And checkuser confirms that it was one of the users that I had interacted with in the past. Wait, what? Seicer doesn't bullshit? Seicer isn't retired? Oh wait, he's only tired of contrib stalkers that pick over every little nuance and every detail that they have no matter in. So I blocked indef'ed, my mistake, but I don't start a damn ANI thread every time my cat shits outside of the catbox. Come to my talk page, let me know what's going on, and I can handle it from there. seicer | talk | contribs 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Being harassed by another user

Resolved

 – Dalkman indefinitely blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see on this edit on an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&diff=278210991&oldid=278210262 And on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dalkman&diff=278210863&oldid=278209575

He puts me as sockpuppet of thousands of users, and reverts my edits with non-sense and non-explanation, and if I'm a sockpuppet wheres the investigation? This user is harassing me. Stop him! Dalkman (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A check user can be performed to get a proof. By the way, calling people retard is not polite and you should abstain from it, regardless what he calls you. --Tone 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He should ask for the checkuser and then revert me, he keeps reverting me and calling me a sockpuppet without a single proof! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dalkman&diff=278220397&oldid=278218329 ). Dalkman (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he has some good reasons. Try to talk to him nice first. If you are not a sockpuppet, he's doing wrong, if you are, you get blocked, easy ;-) --Tone 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will request the check user if necessary. But clearly, this editor is a sockpuppet of one of our most disruptive and problematic sockpuppeteers, User:Korlzor:Korlzor. The Dalkman account (and the User:CASTELBANIA FAN account) was created virtually at the same time that various registered sockpuppets of Korlzor were indefinitely blocked. The very first edit by Dalkman was to effectuate the exact same agenda as Korlzor pursued: eliminate sponsored tournament names in the Rafael Nadal and certain other tennis-related articles. And now Dalkman is not only eliminating the sponsored names, but deleting a huge section, i.e., vandalizing, the Nadal article (the table that lists all of Nadal's tournament championships). And through his blind reverts, he is reinstating vandalism by other users earlier today. So, even if Dalkman were not a sockpuppet of Korlzor, he is blockable purely because of the vandalism he is inflicting on the Nadal article. Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser has been requested. Tennis expert (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the person operating the Korlzor and related accounts never went away after the indefinite blocks were instituted. The person has been evading the blocks constantly (self-admitted) through anonymous IP accounts. The edits by those accounts have been reverted on sight. Apparently, the person has finally gotten frustrated and decided to resume editing through newly registered accounts. Tennis expert (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tennis expert, and have blocked indefinitely. If anyone wants to modify the block, that's ok with me. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Assistance Needed on AfD - Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

This discussion is getting extremely heated and going off course of its intended subject. People are accusing each other back and forth and canvassing the internet to get supporter on their side. I think this is a good time some admins step in to keep the discussion cordial and to the point. Sumanch (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ralph,_Let's_call_her_Ralph and articles on Maria Desiderio/Laura Nyro

 Roux removed the content.

Hi, I am User:GlobeGores on wikibreak. I was looking at an article recently when I noticed there had been edits to my IP's talk page (through the "new messages" orange bar). I was surprised to see an entire article (entitled "When, Where and How did Laura Nyro first meet her eventual life partner, Maria Desiderio?") being written on my talk page by the user in the title. If you look at their userspace, you might see that they've quite proudly admitted to using my talkpage as their own personal sandbox to work with the article.

While I have no objections to honest efforts to build the encyclopedia, I was wondering if someone here could talk to Ralph about using their own userspace rather than random IP talkpages and/or move the content in question to a subpage.

Apologies if this is the wrong venue for these complaints.

69.109.123.156 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (GlobeGores)

I haven't talked to whoever this Ralph person is, though. Figured it makes sense to let him/her respond to your question first.//roux   23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TinyDictsh

I tend to take comments such as the one left by this little nincompoop seriously. Can a CU be run on thei account so that a formal complaint can be filed against his IP or a possible report to the local authorities? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

I have made a request at MediaWiki talk:Revertpage#AES. -- IRP ☎ 02:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg

Someone (I think I Know Who) has created this duplicate page yet again and it's just getting stupid now. Is it possible for somone (you maybe?) to lock this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhydfelen and prehaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ysgol_Gyfun_Rhydfelen (not the article it re-directs to) as a precaution. Thanks a bunch --Glenny127 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored Rhydfelen to redirect to YGGO for now. Please let us know once the name change has been confirmed. If I remember correctly there is a meeting in the next few days to determine the official name. Once that meeting happens, please let us know the resolved name and that should be the article title. Valley2city^‽ 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – seems to be gone now. –xeno (talk)

please help Enigma^msg 07:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing Speedy rationale

Resolved

Bolwar Mahamad Kunhi has been tagged for speedy as WP:NN. While I believe that issue is arguable, the real problem is that the article is a copyvio of this (see page 2 of 11). As a rule, I won't challenge a copyvio. What is the process for this? Can I replace the tag with a {{db-copyvio}}, or does that gum up the works? TIA 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about removing the notability tag, you can always just add db-copyvio without removing the other one. There's nothing inappropriate about having two speedy tags on an article — maybe it will lead to deleting it twice as fast. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filter will probably prevent you from removing it even if you add a new one, so just add the db-copyvio as suggested by David. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to G12 tag. Remember A7 is about assertion of importance not notability. Read the criteria. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, in the future will just add a db-copyvio tag. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, the abuse filter will not block changing a deletion tag, only removing it. Prodego ^talk 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

gotcha. (it's been set back to warn anyway) –xeno (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the abuse filter is blocking editors from removing speedy deletion tags, then I think it's misconfigured. I put a heck of a lot of speedy tags on articles and as I understand the process, the creator of an article may not remove a speedy tag, but anyone else can. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't stopping established editors, and it's been downgraded to warn-only now anyways. –xeno (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Miguel Andres Matienzo Guerra Prod

Resolved

 – A PROD has now been applied to a non-vandalized version of the article, so that this player's actual claims to notability can be assessed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother everyone with this one, but it's another protocol issue I'm curious about. The referenced article has been prod'd (though speedy is far more appropriate). The interesting thing is, the article has been so heavily and consistently vandalized over the past two years, it bears almost no resemblance to the original content (a link can be seen on the article's talk page). However, the original article should be speedied. Should the article be reverted back through almost two years worth of vandalism to an article that still should be tagged for a speedy (and is a pure vanity piece anyway), or should a {{db}} just be placed over the top as is? My biggest concern with that, which is admittedly just a matter of procedure, is that the article would be deleted for the wrong reasons. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored an unvandalized version of the article from 21 November 2008. Take a look at this version and see if you want to apply PROD or a speedy tag. I will notify User:Angelo.romano who left the PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Image overwritten; how to revert?

Resolved

 – Change reverted and deleted. — Jake Wartenberg 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one deal with the mischievous (malicious? ignorant?) overwriting of an image? diff

• Original image: [48]
• Current image: [49], which is identical to File:Pandora Moon.jpg
• User: Dannyboybaby1234 (talk · contribs)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the image by using the "revert" link in the file history portion of the page. In the future (I'm fairly certain that all users can use this link), you can use this link, as well. I will also be deleting the improper image uploads (Pandora Moon.jpg doesn't have any fair use stuff).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

unblock template

Resolved

 – No templating necessary. — Jake Wartenberg 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there someone who can help me to find the right template to put on the userpage of this user User talk:Redriderrebel88 whom I have blocked indefinitely for vile racist vandalism, and whose userpage I have protected for more of the same. I think there is something somewhere about who to email, but I haven't been able to find it. Not that s/he deserves it. Thanks for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. If they seriously want to edit constructively (which, on the face of it, is doubtful), they can start a new account. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with those edits. Classic WP:RBI. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms my opinion. I'll just leave it be unless anybody cares to act differently --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember you can just reblock without talk page access instead of protecting the page. And details about emails and stuff are all here--Jac16888^Talk 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter

Now that the Abuse Filter is active, we've created a page for new filter requests. Also, it would be helpful is someone would post at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter if there is a major vandal attack affecting many pages, so we can consider if there is something that can be done to stop, limit, and/or prevent similar future attacks. (During yesterday's page move spree the filter stopped 17 bad move requests, and we are working on improving that efficiency.) Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

unblock template

Resolved

 – No templating necessary. — Jake Wartenberg 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there someone who can help me to find the right template to put on the userpage of this user User talk:Redriderrebel88 whom I have blocked indefinitely for vile racist vandalism, and whose userpage I have protected for more of the same. I think there is something somewhere about who to email, but I haven't been able to find it. Not that s/he deserves it. Thanks for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. If they seriously want to edit constructively (which, on the face of it, is doubtful), they can start a new account. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with those edits. Classic WP:RBI. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms my opinion. I'll just leave it be unless anybody cares to act differently --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember you can just reblock without talk page access instead of protecting the page. And details about emails and stuff are all here--Jac16888^Talk 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter

Now that the Abuse Filter is active, we've created a page for new filter requests. Also, it would be helpful is someone would post at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter if there is a major vandal attack affecting many pages, so we can consider if there is something that can be done to stop, limit, and/or prevent similar future attacks. (During yesterday's page move spree the filter stopped 17 bad move requests, and we are working on improving that efficiency.) Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

This is also at WP:BLP/N, but User:Carolmooredc keeps adding the {{BLPdispute}} tag, but refuses to identify any poorly referenced sources that would justify the tag; she is also making statements on the border of legal threats. I have scoured the article of anti-Atzmon WP:PRIMARY materials, and even some reliably sourced material that Moore complained about (shrinking the article by 30% in the process, while adding several sources), but she seems to want the article entirely sanitized of anything that would mention Atzmon's antisemitism. Additional eyes appreciated. THF (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont see the threat. the editor is saying that atzmon is litigious, not herself. not properly attributing a designator that the subject of the article does not self-identify with is in violation of BLP. this article has turned into an attack page, as i have noted in the new section on the talk page. untwirl(talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll runs as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent "Filibustering" of List of X-American sourcing

I have waited nearly 6 months hoping that the problem would work itself out without a revert war, and instead, it has just worsened. I think a rigid admin intervention is necessary to finally get these lists into shape.

User:Badagnani and User:Hmains persistently prevent the removal of inappropriate, unsourced, or incorrectly-sourced names on List of X Americans... making up their own definition of X Americans which includes anyone with X ancestry, regardless of any reputable source recognition.

Take a look at the recent history of List of Hungarian Americans: [50]

Even when another user spots a problem with listing a British individual as Hungarian American because of a Hungarian relative, he is reverted on the spot: [51]

This means that Joaquin Phoenix is on the same list as Bela Lugosi, because Joaquin's grandma had apparently some Hungarian ancestry. Bulldog 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani continues to use aggressive WP:OWNish tactics on List of X Americans. Some wiki-stalking going on too.

Nearly all of all names on the lists are without source, many of which because THERE IS NO SOURCE calling them Hungarian American. I had attempted to remove all such names with the intention that if a source can be found explicitly saying this, they can, of course, be re-added.

Use:Badagnani filibusters the attempts at cleaning up the lists by constantly asking for consensus or 'discussion' but NEVER participating in consensus-finding or discussion. See Talk:List_of_Hungarian_Americans for example. He merely reverts on the spot with comments such as 'massive blanking' or (in the past) 'vandalism/trolling'. The same can be said of Hmains, though he is less aggressive. Bulldog 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to push this off on someone else, but you may get a better response at The Reliable Source Noticeboard which does specialize in analyzing and dealing with referencing and sourcing issues. Users that patrol that noticeboard have a special aptitude and interest in dealing with these issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll move it. Should I remove it from here then? Bulldog 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Huge copyright mess, redux

Hi. Those of you who saw this ANI conversation already know that we are dealing with possibly about 1,000 copyright violations related to Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1. I'm quite pleased to say that clean-up is well underway. It's a lot of work, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods has rallied around it, and there are contributors to the cleanup from the newly (and just in time) formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. The project task force set up for cleaning it (a bit chaotic, which is understandable in the scurry; I think it's astoundingly well organized all things considered) is here.

However, it has just been confirmed at that project taskforce page that the contributor involved, User:GrahamBould, has also introduced infringement from at least one other source. User:Sadalmelik notes here that Blotchy swell shark and Blackspot shark both copy content from fishbase.org, which has a non-commercial cc license and hence is unusable here. (I haven't been able to load the sources personally to verify these articles, both of which are still viewable. It may also impact non-shark articles like Longtail skate, which also cites that website.) That means we go from 1,000 or so articles to, well, I don't know how many. Sadalmelik also notes that User:GrahamBould has created 2,543 articles. We could really use more assistance on this. The articles in Category:Gastropods of New Zealand may be underway, but I do not know the full scope of this problem.

I am concerned that there may be infringement from more sources than are currently identified. For example, in the February 2009 article Phillip Pearsall Carpenter I see piecemeal borrowing from the source, [52], in a way that gives me great concern. His article says, "He devoted the majority of the remainder of his life to these shells, presenting part of his collection (8,873 specimens), mounted, classified and many described, to the British Museum in 1857." The source says, "He devoted the majority of the remainder of his life to these shells..." "He presented part of his collection (8,873 specimens), mounted, classified and many described, to the British Museum in 1857" (I have not gone over the article line by line to see if infringement is extensive.) I worry that other articles may also contain a pastiche of fragments from copyrighted sources.

I think we need to discuss if and under what circumstances this contributor can be safely allowed to continue. It worries me that he persisted even after offered guidance over a year ago.

I'd also really appreciate feedback on how best to process this. Neither the Gastropod project nor the new Copyright Cleanup project have the manpower to evaluate 2,500 articles. I think the 1,000 they're working on is pretty heroic as it is. Should we delete with extreme prejudice? Provide a bounty for cleanup? Recruit assistance from other projects? How best to proceed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He has a list of sources on his userpage. Since he's violated the copyright of two, its safe to assume that he may have done so with others. Avruch ^T 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a case of a misunderstanding? That appears to be the way the discussion was heading prior to discovering the other instances of copyright violations. If the user genuinely did not understand how copyrights work, and is working with others to correct problems, then I could see a justification for leaving him unblocked. On the other hand, if he had the opportunity to point out that this behavior pattern extended to other sources and did not... That would be active deception, which combined with everything else may mean that an indefinite (re)block is in order. Avruch ^T 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

May I interject this: I was the person who first spotted all this. On February 26th 2008, on his talk page, I clearly told GB about copyrights and copying over a year ago, and gave him a link to the policy page. See User talk:GrahamBould#Doto pita and others or below:

Extended content

“ Hi Graham, I was looking at this new page just now, and I noticed that the text on Distribution is copied verbatim from the Sea Slug Forum site. I have often wondered how much you actually rewrite the rather detailed text in your numerous articles, although I have never asked you that, because I did not want to appear rude, and I could not think of a polite way of asking. Now I am wondering if in fact much of the text in many of the articles is copied verbatim from Powell and other sources? (I have not had a chance to look at a Powell so I don't know how closely your text corresponds with his.) You do know about the copywright violation problem, right? Maybe not? No sources in modern times can be copied verbatim into Wikipedia unless you have explicit permission from the author to do so, and then you have to submit that permission to Wikipedia so they know it is legit. Any content that you have copied verbatim will have to be rewritten or reworded ASAP. Here is a quote from one section of Wikipedia:Copyrights: "All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL. "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself. Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context." Good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Hope you don't mind, just in case, a fuller explanation is at: [53]. Invertzoo (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) ”

Thanks for your attention on this, best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And here is GB's reply to me on my talk page, User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 5#Dotidae and Dotoidae where he admits one copying, but fails to answer my question about many other articles and whether there might be copying verbatim from the Powell book and other sources:

Extended content
Thanks InvertZoo. Have now seen the error of my ways & fixed it by redirect. Hope it's right now. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC) re copyright, yes I was lazy with the Distribution for Doto pita, now fixed.GrahamBould (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You should indef immediately, and notify the WMF of the issue. Musn't fool around with stuff like this. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the scope, I'm inclined to think that Looie496 may be right about notifying the WMF.

As regards teh contributor, I think confusion is a possibility, but there is the matter that the copyright policy was pointed out to him in February of 2008, at the bottom of his talk page here, but he persisted. He has expressed remorse over this, here and at my talk page a couple of minutes ago. I believe he may well be sincere. But if he persisted after that February 2008 warning because he didn't understand, how can we know he understands now? If we do not indef block, I wonder if he would benefit from mentorship from someone familiar with his field. I can't undertake that, both because I'm swamped with this cleanup and because I'm already mentoring somebody for just that very concern. It's time consuming, checking for possible infringement.

This is, really, a problem of a much greater magnitude than I've encountered. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense to move the thousands of articles he created to his userspace temporarily while they are evaluated and cleaned. User:GrahamBould/Copyvio_Check/Article_Name might be a way to go. A bot could presumably scrape his create log and move all the pages. The first priority would be creating clean stubs and moving them back, and then improving the articles themselves over time. Avruch ^T 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we'd need the articles subpaged, a list of redirects generated to be deleted by hand, a list of articles moved (perhaps by category or alphabetical? I know they are already being worked alphabetically) and, er, maybe thats it. Avruch ^T 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what the Gastropod project has been doing. A good many of those have already been cleaned. I wonder if there's a way to move all of his articles that do not fall into Category:Gastropods of New Zealand. (A few articles from other categories have been cleaned, but not many.) User:Dcoetzee ran a bot to blank the ones in that category, but at some point the bot seems to have malfunctioned, as the later letters do not seem to have been blanked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, my script had a problem and did not complete tagging of that category; I can fix this and will be careful not to retag ones that have been cleaned up.

Also, at this point, I'm tempted to consider all of this contributor's major prose contributions as suspected copyvios until demonstrated otherwise. My ContributionSurveyor report on GrahamBould points to a number of problem articles (some not even related to biology), such as Battle of Kufra, Maungatautari Restoration Project, and Hubert Scott-Paine. It's also important to keep in mind that not just articles he created are at risk, but any article he made substantial prose contributions to; examples of this include Rhaphidophoridae and Powelliphanta. Dcoetzee 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving them into user space is unnecessary, as I understand User:Dcoetzee can fairly easily blank them in place if necessary. The complete list of articles started by GB can be found here. Some of the have already been fixed (in Category:Molluscs of New Zealand). Other than a couple shark articles, I have not checked anything else. If somebody could do a bit more spot-checking, it would be appriciated --I'm supposed to be at work now :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• "That means we go from 1,000 or so articles to, well, I don't know how many." I doubt it is this drastic. A single line copy from fishbase is not really a copyright infringement. It's only the case if extensive sections of text are copied. Citing for example a definition of something can rarely be done in your own words without compromising on proper meaning. Be careful of deleting material that can be saved by rewriting and deleting the copyvio history instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you volunteering to help with the fishbase articles, then? :) As I said, I haven't been able to load the source myself, and I'm pretty preoccupied with the molluscs (to wit Special:Contributions/Moonriddengirl) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Why is this person still not blocked? Durova^Charge! 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I had requested that he come here and give us some frank information on how widespread this problem is. Whether his infringement was based on not comprehending copyright laws and policies or something else, his expressions of remorse have seemed sincere, and admitting sources he's copied from would be a big help. However, he hasn't edited since that request. He was blocked earlier, briefly, by another admin, but the same admin unblocked him to allow him to respond to these concerns. As far as future contributions, I don't know if supervision from one of the several project members who have encouraged him to continue editing at his talk page after this event would be sufficient safeguard or not; I would feel very uneasy with his continuing to contribute without close supervision. Since he hasn't been editing either to react to or ignore my request, it's been a lower priority for me. That said, if this conversation heads towards archival without feedback from him, then I think reblocking would be a good idea. There's no harm in waiting, but forgetting could be a different issue. And if somebody wants to take his lack of response here and at the earlier ANI thread as indication that he isn't going to respond, I certainly have no objection to his being blocked before that happens. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is an unblock necessary to respond to concerns? That's what user talk access is for. He was confronted with concerns a year ago and kept right on doing it. With a problem as massive as this, shouldn't the onus would be on him to earn back the privilege of editing? Perhaps by assisting with the cleanup. But the problem he's caused here is much more disruptive than the typical things we block for. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If he continues to add content without responding to the concerns, a block would be appropriate to prevent further copyvio. If he's not editing the mainspace though, there's no immediate concern and a block would be punitive. –xeno (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
        • It might encourage him to take actions that would remedy the existing problem. There's nothing wrong with setting unblock conditions, since a huge amount of copyvio material remains to be cleaned up and he should be expected to help with that cleanup if he wants to edit this site again. To block someone after an edit war has ended would be punitive, since that problem ends when the edit war ends. But the damage here has not been undone. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I just wanted to point out that GB was still editing in mainspace as of yesterday 18th March. At 4:45 on Tuesday March 17th, he actually started a new gastropod (sea slug) article Berthella ornata, and started a new shrimp article Alope spinifrons on that same day. In the sea slug article, there are no long copyings, but the short phrases "Endemic to New Zealand" and "under rocks" are verbatim, if that's relevant. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh good grief! There are some phrases that simply cannot be avoided. Any author on the topic will use them, and its not an issue of copyright. See Endemism - endemic has a specific meaning - it is not the same as native, and there is no acceptable synonym. dramatic (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
              • I do understand that. However, he needs to be watched very carefully. The important point is that despite being blocked and then unblocked only so that he could reply to the very serious charges, he is still editing in mainspace (Xeno thought that he wasn't doing this, which is why I pointed it out) and he is creating articles by himself without any supervision, and without being given the OK. Despite being asked to do so twice, he has not come to this noticeboard to answer the very serious charges against him, and he has not agreed to help us by telling us anything about what was copied and what was not copied of his thousands of articles, thus forcing us to scramble to attempt to ascertain this ourselves. I personally don't see very much evidence of remorse, and his history of persevering in the face of having been warned clearly a year ago suggests the intent to deceive. Invertzoo (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Very well said, Invertzoo. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some form of Wikiprobation where problem editors willing to be reintegrated with society have all their contributions moderated. It would be better than indef-banning someone and then having to watch for new accounts who are suddenly active in the same fields. Anyway, I'm off to reassess all the WPNZ statuses for the mollusc articles, because (on my advice) GB tagged all the more substantial ones as start class. dramatic (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is such a solution, but it hasn't been implemented here. He was unblocked unnecessarily when user talk access would have been adequate. He was not placed under mentorship, not assigned any formal restriction, and has ignored the stated purpose of the unblock while returning to article edits. Meanwhile over a thousand pages of his creation--much of which are probably copyvio--await review. The admin community has not even required that he give any assistance at all to the volunteers who are starting the daunting task of cleaning it up. And in case the weight of this hasn't sunk in, what he's been doing is illegal. He kept on breaking the law for a year after he was asked to discuss it. Something is very wrong with our site culture, when all of that gets a wink and a nod. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't require that he give us assistance, unfortunately, until the Wikimedia Foundation earns sovereignty. :) There's no winking & nodding on my part, anyway. While I have been extremely busy in the trenches cleaning up after him, I take copyright problems very seriously, and I have been watching for a return to any activity on his part. We have collectively cleaned around 1,000 articles since this was brought to light and are trying to figure out how to handle the next nearly 1,000. Meanwhile, what's really wrong with our site culture, I think, is that so much of this goes undetected. Just yesterday I found another contributor whose entire history seems to have involved violating copyright on Wikipedia (see background). I'm kicking myself on that one, because the bulk of his infringement came after the first time I encountered him at WP:CP. If I had followed up on him, I could have stopped him. (I follow up on some, but not most; there are so many. :/ I've given him a block warning, since he had not received one, and will be watching him now. The vast majority of copyright infringers who land at CP get {{Nothanks-web}}, which is a very warm advisory operating on the obvious presumption of error. I've wondered if it should incorporate some of the stronger language at {{Uw-copyright}} to emphasize that this isn't an "Oh, gee" problem, but a serious concern.) Maybe it would be worth talking to WP:NPP about scanning for copyright violations. Given that I have several times recently found DYK articles that infringed; since the hard working contributors at that project evaluate articles, perhaps they could be asked to keep an eye out, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We require mentorship as terms of an unblock; we topic ban people as terms of an unblock. In same spirit we could require cleanup assistance as terms of an unblock, for prolific copyright violators. At least to inform other volunteers of the titles, authors, and chapters used. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I would so support that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.[54] I'll be explaining this on the policy talk page. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing at List of common misconceptions

The entry immediately above this put me in mind of a dispute i'm in, so posting here. I have no problem with "filibustering" or complaints about other editors (there are editors I disagree with, but their behavior is not a problem). The minor dispute at the moment (minor because i'm not deleting anything) has to do with this list. Many/most of the listed items there have no reliable sources establishing that they are in fact "common misconceptions" (or any words that would generally be accepted to equal the same thing). This article is currently at AfD, and I am among those arguing it should be deleted (meta reason: don't believe "common misconception" is definable in the limited, specfic sense true categories would require). But if the article survives, i believe strongly that our standards for reliable sourcing should be enforced. The feelings of one, some or even many editors on wikipedia that something is a "common misconception" are insufficient to over-ride standards of verifiability, sourcing and notability. I'm just asking for more eyes and advice. Were i to unilaterally impose these standards (i know we're not supposed to do anything unilaterally) we would quickly be in an edit war.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If its at AFD, then that discussion probably takes primacy over anything here. There does not appear to be anything here for admins to do. Please let the AFD run its course, trust the admin who closes it to make a well thought-out decision on how to interpret consensus, and continue to discuss the matter at the talk pages of the policy and guideline pages you cite. Again, this may be an important issue, but this noticeboard is limited to issues that need admins to deal with. I don't see where a protection, a block, or a deletion is imperitive here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you advise me to unilaterally removed unsourced material? This would not be well received. I don't want sanctions, or protection, or the whole article to have something done to it. I'm seeking assistance in enforcing standards of inclusion (the AfD i agree will determine whether the article persists or not; but it should be improved in the interim, and after if it survives). Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• A collection of random badly-sourced trivia spammed with Keeps and tagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron? Blimey, that's never happened before. Black Kite 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• This of course is not an admin issue, but more eyes are certainly welcome, both at the AfD and in helping to improve the article itself. I'm all for improving the sourcing of the article, which will benefit from additional scrutiny. The issue of what can accurately be called a "common misconception" can also be solved through improved sourcing. Bali ultimate is thankfully aware that nothing should be deleted simply on the basis that it is unsourced (BLPs being a notable exception).--Father Goose (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• No, don't unilaterally remove entries, move them to the talk page of the article for people to reference. That way nothing is lost but sourcing is still enforced. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification -- I believe almost everything that is unsourced should be deleted (BLP's are simply more urgent). The presence of unsourced content degrades the encyclopedia (by creating the impression wikipedia does not enforce basic standards). However, i'm well aware that edit warring to get that done is inappropriate (if i thought moves to the talk page would also not be reverted, i would do that of course).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be better as a category than as a list. --John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Assigning abusefilter-modify to non admins

A discussion is (hopefully) taking place here. Your input is greatly appreciated. — Jake Wartenberg 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Wikimedia software not reporting image use, so don't delete images without checking

In TV Tokyo, you can clearly see File:Tv-tokyo-logo.png being used (I clicked the image to make sure I was viewing the right image page), but the "File links" section on that image page is blank. So, it appears something weird is happening and we need to be careful about deleting images which are allegedly not being used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to have cleared itself up now. It was happening for over 10 minutes, even after clearing cache files. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add a redirect from "Tam Valley" to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley"

talk to me 22:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 – Skomorokh to the rescue--Fabrictramp

Locals use "Tam Valley" when referring to this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiehdc (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Tam Valley to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, California. In future, you may want to post requests like these at the Help Desk, as no administrator involvement is needed. Regards, Skomorokh 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Or even better, at AfC. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam consistent vandalism

Yamanam, you've removed six sources and reverted 3+ paragraphs of information. You justify the reverts with "as per talk", but you gave no user a chance to respond. You have a lenghty history in eliminating "POV-pushing" (emphasize on the quotes), such as unnecessary AFDs at Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict, changing the title of reprisal attacks 2+ times to blatantly POV, and I'm pretty sure you've been blocked a couple of times. I honestly don't have the time to repaste every vandalized edit on the article but I plan on posting what you did at Administrator noticeboard. You've been warned before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Update Yeah this was meant to be on User:Yamanam talk. Anyways, since it's already here I don't really feel like posting a lengthy rationale for my complaint. The evidence speaks for it yourself, these kind of users cannot be changed. Many users have worked hard on the article and he tore it all down in the name of "POV." Is there away you can reverse all of his edits or a quick fix? I really, really, really don't feel like copy/paste for 2 hours. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is soooo obvious that Yamanam is not vandalising. Here are my finding on his edits:

• Yamanam is in the right, he corrected the number to 6 which is what the source says The person who originally placed 19 should be warned for deception.

• Another good faith correction by Yamanam, he corrected the number as per source, one source says more than 60 were shot and the other source says 35 were shot in the leg. The third wasn't working for him as indicated in his next summary so it is still a good faith edit. Yamanam is also right that there is no mention of blindness in any of the sources Again, he removed another sneaky vandalism.

• Another good edit by Yamanam, he removed the source that says 35 were shot, the source is indeed not necessary as it contradicts other sources used for the same line

• This is a content dispute and Yamanam provides his rationale on talk page, I don't see vandalism here.

As much as I would like to take this opportunity to discuss wikifan's editing skills, I am going to refrain for the time being. All I have to say is Wikifan rarely does crosschecking and he is quick to make accusations. I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and if I was found to be wrong, then please accept it as a mistake. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Yam was nearly banned from changing the title of the article 4 times to 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks against traitors, Hamas termination of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict's spies (twice), and Hamas’ termination of spies active during the 2008-2009 Gazan-Israeli conflict. Good faith should have been dismissed by now. His rationale for the vandalism speak for itself: [55]. He points out x problem, reverts it 5 seconds later according to "per talk." I'm looking through his edits and they don't ADD UP. In one example he says a source is POV because it was "describing Hamas to be a "radical Islamist movement." Also, fal, you've been wikihounding me day and night at 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict which I truly couldn't care less about, but please don't stonewall this. Yamanam shat on this article, plain and simple. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again typical behavior from wikifan12345, doesn't care to crosscheck and argues for the sake of arguing (also places dubious information in articles and restores copyvio text when told not to). I think many people who have watched this board and incidents board are familiar with wikifan12345 [56], they will be the best judge here.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael93555 (talk · contribs) restored sneaky vandalism by reverting all of Yamamam's edits stating, "I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and i think a administrator needs to reverse all of his edits." Very suspicious since he uses my wording, and I doubt he really did any crosschecking. BTW, Michael created his account just 8 days ago [57] and already he is participating on the admin noticeboard. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First, in my defence, I agree on Falastine fee Qalby's responses on my behalf, I don't think I would be able to put in in a better way than he did. So please consider Falastine fee Qalby's responses here to be mine.

Now concerning Wikifan, please note the following:

• • he gave me this bad link to misguide me and if it wasn't for Falastine fee Qalby's remark here I wouldn't know about this thread - So speaking of bad faith, I am afraid this is worse than all wikifan's false allegations against me.
  • here he undid Nabeelzy's revision without taking the time to crossexamine whether the version is correct or not (which wsa my version)
  • here he admitted that the sources are using differnet numbers than the one in the article, and he is claiming that someone has changed the source, nevertheless, he came here and posted his thread against me knowing that he might be mistaken.
  • here he removed this sentence "He was convicted of helping Israel kill four Fatah activists in Rafah" to support his POV that says Hamas is a terrorist organization and he is trying to eliminate any fact that might discredited his POV.
  • here he is claiming that this reprisal attacks resulted in the killing of 400 Fatah activist, which is totally incorrect.
  • I can't understand why did he make this edit twice here and [58] I'll leave to you to know why, I'll keep my opinion to myself.
  • here as you can see the article said 18, and he changed it to 19 and the source says 6!! What would you call that.
  • this edit, I am not sure, where from did he get "encouraged and supported" the attack, I couldn't find it in the source.
  • here this is irrelevant to the subject matter, but I am afraid is relevant to his POV, Hamas is bad that is.
  • why is this considered by wikifan as vandalism? although it reflects the sources, maybe once again because it is against his POV.
  • here he is asserting that 50 were killed, although the source it self says may have been executed.

I am sure the list goes on and on, but I don't want to much of your time. Wikifan, I am afrain it is constant vandalism from your side, and I wish the admin will act upon it. Yamanam (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is not the place Yam. You have a dispute make your own section. One of the sources said 400+ were killed, however the language was actually referring the Hamas/Fatah battle a couple of years ago. The article didn't make that explicitly clear and during that time there weren't many sources to verify # casualties. Falastine, you didn't respond to what I said. I don't care about your opinion, really I don't. I'm saying this so you can end the baiting, because you won't get a response. :D Yam, disputes such as these must be made in the talk section. It is clear your reasoning is flawed and based on POV-pushing. You have a lengthy history of removing cited information, claiming to follow the process (i.e, per talk) but instead go your own way according to a partisan agenda. Here, check the history: 2 other editors removed Yam's vandalism. this isn't a POV fued, Yam is a textbook vandal trying to dig his way out of a hole. Please end this before the article becomes yet another Israel/Pal battleground. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This just in: here he is removing a sentence from the lead that all sources agree on it. and here deleted 60-75 (that was added by me), and kept only 75 were injured, please note that 2 of the used sources say 60 and only one says 75. Now who is making vandalised edits, me or him. Yamanam (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan stop making false allegations, if you have diffs to support your false claims against me, then please be my guest and present them, otherwise, stop whatever you are doing. Yamanam (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Wikifan12345 has been blocked 24hr for editwarring. He is claiming in his unblock request that I said that he should be shot for deception [59][60] when I really said "The person who originally placed 19 should be warned for deception." [61] This type of lying is dangerous, can we impose a much longer block? Perhaps..forever? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought, how about y'all take content disputes to one of the appropriate venues and only bring it here when that doesn't work? //roux   07:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Harrison

Resolved

This "article" seems to be a sort of birthday present or similar, but probably not really fitting for :en.--Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. This is actually supposed to be an article about a character in a TV show. Check previous revisions. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you're right - didn't notice that! It's OK now, though, I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I made the same mistake myself a few minutes earlier. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editors on Maltese People

This may be preemptive, but since Maltese people got unprotected there's been IP activity over the same issue that got the article protected. I've suggested things get discussed in the talk page: IP edits are strikingly similar in content and tone. Other than request discussion on the talk page is there anything I should be doing? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading messages its left on talkpages, seems fairly certain this is the same anon. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Say hello to this guy. I used to ask Alison for help when I spotted him but sadly she's gone now. The only effective remedy is semi-protection since the ranges he edits from are too big to block for any significant amount of time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I thought something odd was going on. I've made a request for semi-protect. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Also, it's useless to argue with him. That's one of the reasons he's banned here and on Simple. The best strategy is to just wait for an admin to semi-protect the article and talk page and then revert his edits. The kid is beyond reach, you can't reason with him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame he brings that attitude to Wikipedia. I've requested semi-protect & told him I wont discuss the issue without admin intervention, but admins seem busy. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. It should do for now. --Tone 14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ISP contacted

I've forwarded my entire Iamandrewrice archive to Opal Telecom. This includes records of his disruption here going back over a year as well as evidence of his disruption on Simple and behaviour on other Wikimedia projects and on Wikia, links to his Myspace and Bebo profiles and e-mails sent directly to me with full headers as well as mails forwarded by Jeffpw to me, also with full headers. I've made it clear that I'm not acting on behalf of the foundation. Game over Ben, enough is enough. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Users wanting blocked.

Ok, this came up at ACC a bit ago, a user requested a new account with is similarly named to a banned sockpuppet. Reason they gave was that they they were the target of a personal attack and was wanting that username salted to prevent this happening again. I looked over WP:BLOCK but couldn't find anything concrete, so I was wanting a second opinion. Q ^{T C} 10:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. User:Spongebob's real name is JimDoe. A recent sock created the account User:JimDoe and preformed personal attacks against Jim. Jim then came to ACC to request an account that is a variation of JimDoe, and furthermore that it be indef'd to keep the sock from creating the account and continuing their personal attacks. They still want to edit under their pseudonym, and don't want a name change. Q ^{T C} 13:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved.

Talked with somebody, nevermind :) Q ^{T C} 13:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Main page cascading protection problems

Something's wrong with cascading protection. DYK Images on the main page are not being automatically protected. There was problems with the previous group. I tested and protected the image on this group because it wasn't working. There's a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Main_page_cascading_protection_not_working. Royalbroil 12:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check this out

Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote in a number of articles (Francisco Combés, Enrique of Malacca, Carlo Amoretti, First mass in the Philippines, Mazaua and Andrés de San Martín) that have improper refs and have not addressed various tags slapped on them. One editor has tried to talk to him about NOR, without much success. Please assist, especially those from wikiproject history. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to edit Mazaua, but accomplished nothing. I was going around in circles trying to clean it up and getting nowhere. It would have to be rewritten from scratch. The text there does not appear to be salvageable. Enigma^msg 03:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you recommending rewrite tags on one or all of them?--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. They aren't even close to becoming articles of passable quality. Enigma^msg 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Before and After > I just improved the Mazaua article. Take a look and let me know what you all think. I got to tell you, it looks way better than it did before.--Michael (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AFTER is more pleasing to the eye, at least all the URLs are not mixed with the finished text. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, If you need me to fix any other articles. Just let me know.--Michael (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. The other articles listed at the beginning of this thread could use some fixing too... - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"The isle is an improbability: it is fused with mainland Mindanao". That's one of the most interesting sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban on Fila3466757

NOTICE: I originally made this post at ANI, but I transferred it to here for visibility. ANI also seemed to be the wrong venue. →Dyl@n620 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been an unusually large amount of site bans lately (Abbarocks, Bloomfield, TheJazzFan, RMHED, Tigeroo), so while I'm still spending a bit of my time today working with WP:LOBU, I'd like to recommend one myself.
Fila3466757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in February 2008 (over a year ago) per the findings at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (2nd) and a previous SSP case after incivility, sockpuppetry, and other disruption. Since then, he has amassed some 45 confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, most recently Filper01 (talk · contribs · block log) (as well as a series of related names), Okay15 (talk · contribs · block log), Ciaran1534 (talk · contribs · block log), and 45ODY (talk · contribs · block log); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.144.172.188 for further information. (Yeah, I know this is a LOT of links, but bear with me here. :))

As Tharnton345 (talk • contribs), Fila got sitebanned from the Simple English Wikipedia back in early February for absurd levels of immature disruption (discussion here). I saw through one of his contributions that he admitted to being a sock of Fila here on en. Just recently, I looked further into the situation and studied Fila's disruption myself. The links I have provided amass dozens of diffs combined, so you all have plenty of evidence of Fila's long-term abuse.

Yeah, all I'm probably doing is asking for de facto to be changed to de jure, but we need to find a way to tell Fila that he can't just come back and disrupt WP whenever he feels like it. His recent socking is the last straw, IMO. For long-term sock abuse and (cross-wiki) disruption, I wish for a community ban on Fila3466757. Here goes nothing. <butterflies...> →Dyl@n620 21:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it needs to be underlined and officially stamped; a ban can be de facto if it is an indefinite block that no admin is prepared to overturn. The only outcome of advertising this is for that one (or more) sysop to make it known that they are prepared to do so... However, as it is here Support ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was requesting to turn de facto into de jure. It happened just recently to RMHED (talk · contribs · block log). Oh, and endorse ban as the user proposing it. →Dyl@n620 02:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added the template to his userpage, and added his name to the list. He's been blocked indef. and is still abusing accounts, so I doubt any administrator is going to unblock anytime in the near future. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The templating Fila is reasonable, but I don't think "abusing multiple accounts" is exactly a valid reason to add him to the list. Dozens upon dozens of users get blocked for that. Besides, I think it would be best to give the date of the actual ban (perhaps today, March 22, 2009?), rather than the day of the block. Besides, I'd like to see the entry be given more detail. →Dyl@n620 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• No point. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and so the distinction between defacto bans and dejure bans is entirely moot. No admin would unblock a recividist, unrepentant, disruptive sockpuppeteer, and as such this discussion is merely flogging the deceased pony. He's gone, and there doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion to confirm that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per Jayron32. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per Jayron32, and this is unnecessary process-wonkery. Not to mention the fact that certain banned users revel in their banned status. Please read WP:RBI and WP:DENY for more information. //roux   07:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it helped. →Dyl@n620 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Death threat on Talk:Dhaka Medical College and Hospital

I just noticed and reverted this death threat, given against a doctor. The death threat originated from a UK IP address. I don't know anything else about it, but gave the anon IP a warning about it. Not sure if this is a serious matter, but given the strong language of the death threat, I think this should be looked into seriously. --Ragib (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a death threat, that's just a guy saying that he should burn in hell. Still incredibly offensive, but at no point does he threaten anything. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the last sentence, --"You should be hanged publicly and your body should given to wild dogs" ?? --Ragib (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, it's a nasty personal attack. But the editor doesn't really seem to be making a direct threat against this person's life. I definitely recommend keeping an eye on that IP address in case anything else comes up. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Very blocked. That is way over the line, I would consider the last line a threat. Chillum 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat. "You should" is very different from "I will". It is, however, a personal attack worthy of an immeadiate block. --Tango (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not the times that I draw a fine line in grammar. The meaning was clear that he was endorsing this person to be killed. That is a threat. Perhaps not the act of making a threat, but posing a threat none the less. Endorsing a person be killed and saying you are going to do it are two sides of the same page for me and get the same response. Chillum 02:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When someone spews that kind of crap, the last thing we want to do is sit and wait to see if they do more. We block them. Chillum 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. That personal attack was an abhorring one, so I endorse your decision. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

After some searching, I found this recent incident from the hospital. Apparently, the subject of the threat is an intern doctor working in the hospital. --Ragib (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that comment be deleted from the history? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SPAs at AfD

Resolved

 – Closed as delete and promptly userified. Will continue to monitor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Johannite Church. The discussion is dominated by new single purpose accounts and previously dormant accounts. There also are signs of off-wiki canvassing here and on a private Gnosticism mailing list. Thank you! --Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• If I read the discussion correctly, only the nominator and one other commenter gave solid reasons. That is too little for consensus making and the sockpuppetry may well have scared off other commenters. I'd prefer to see the discussion extended. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Acemandude5

Another user in the account creation made a username which ip was blacklisted but the account was still created i am asking that this account get's removed thanks.User_talk:Staffwaterboy#Account_Creation is the discustion..

Regards

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 06:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally processed this account and made an error. I'm Sorry. Can this error now be corrected/rectified? Many Thanks Marek.69 ^talk 07:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, please be more careful in the future. John Reaves 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please e-mail the requester (who is probably confused). John Reaves 08:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn versus Tennis expert!

Resolved

Tennis expert is trying to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, which I am not because I have tried in good faith to get it out their I have multiple user accounts and s/he keeps on removing them. Tennis expert does take Ip address that are harsh about his edits and attributes them falsly to me, which I am not using them. The only Ip address that I have ever owned is User talk:69.247.19.250, and not these

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎

04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎

04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎ (Undid revision 275673778 by 76.16.99.162 (talk))

04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎

04:18, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎

04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎ _BLuE^DOgTn 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. A bunch of plaintext doesn't tell anybody anything about what's going on. //roux   07:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What the... [62] — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This gave me a chuckle. GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case on this user because I dont know who would need alot of so called "legit" alt accounts. GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Mosley

Resolved

^{Speedily deleted by DGG}

An editor has expressed that the discussion is heading towards WP:SNOW, might be worth closing it. --DFS454 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:STBotI, a bot against fair use

Resolved

 – Bot fixed. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning User:ST47's bot User:STBotI i.e. User:ST47's opinion "say no to fair use", both Travis (chimpanzee).jpg and File:Travis the chimp.png have always included a fair use rationale from the moment they were uploaded, re: message left on my talk page by a bot. It seems nobody read the image description pages and that the bot simply opposes all fair use. Also, yes to fair use makes more sense. If it's fair use in an article here, it's fair use when that article is used. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and Wikimedia Commons is a database of media files. --Chuck (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that the bot does not recognize {{Film screenshot fur}} as a valid FUR. This is a matter of a malfunctioning bot, rather than a more sinister plot to eliminate fair use (the botop's personal opinions notwithstanding). –xeno (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You should contact the bot operator and ask him about the problem. --Tone 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done [63] –xeno (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Which would be fine, except the fair use rationale for File:Travis the chimp.png is incorrect. It states that the image is not replaceable by a free one, which is clearly false as given the subject, there is clearly a high possibility that a free image could be found. On a separate issue, "Yes to fair use" actually makes less sense. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. As soon as you use a fair use image in an article, it makes the article unable to be re-used in many jurisdictions as it will involve a copyright violation. Black Kite 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's reasonable to expect volunteers to get a shovel to produce a free image. In any event, any use that's anywhere near our requirements don't make re-use any more difficult than it already is, unless the re-use is highly transformative. Can't do anything about that. WilyD 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's be reasonable about it though; some subjects are going to be horribly difficult to find a free image of. This one - an animal that had been photographed thousands of times during his life - shouldn't be. Not to be mention that the non-free image is of dire quality. Black Kite 16:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I doubt the bot made it's decision based on this, if it did, that's one clever bot. –xeno (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Artificial intelligence at work :) No, it was clearly just a bot error. Doesn't change the fact that the rationale is wrong, though. Black Kite 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
          • ST47 noted that he has fixed it. I've broken the below section as it's unrelated to the bot issue. –xeno (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

discussion of the legitimacy of the FUR itself

• I have nominated this image for deletion, as it is basically an attempt to get around G4. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since when do we allow template-based boilerplate like Template:Film screenshot fur to be used as FURs? This basically says that any screenshot from a film can be used as a fair use image. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do - use of templates has been widely accepted. This must just be a new one. That's a different issue from the question of whether the rationale applies. Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear example of abuse of the template- that template should be used for articles on the film only. {{Album cover fur}} is fine to use for an album cover on an album article, but it is no good to add that template then wap the cover into the article on the artist. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The album cover one makes sense as an album cover is almost certainly going to be relevant in the article about the album, but this is basically a blanket approval for any film screenshot, regardless of how relevant it is. Even on the article about the film, there's no guarantee that any random screenshot is going to be relevant enough to pass WP:NFCC #8. Mr.Z-man 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that users believe that if they attach a completed FUR to an image, it automatically makes it OK to use in an article. Then they complain when they fall foul of WP:NFCC (and to be fair, how would they know?). We don't deal with this issue well - Special:Upload should make non-free usage a LOT clearer than it does. Black Kite 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to rememeber that this template previously dealt only with the covers for films, for infobox use. I completely agree with Mr. Z-man that screenshots can in no way be given the kind of automatic approval that this template implies, and I would support deprecating or even deleting this template. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating/ deleting current page

A previous staff member set up the log in details and information currently displayed on our page. We are unable to find any of the log in details to update the information on it/ delete the page so we can start afresh and upload the current details of the organisation. Does anyone know hoe we would go about doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.161.237 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it would help if you linked us to the article you are talking about. Secondly, you do not need to log in to edit Wikipedia unless the page is semi-protected. Thirdly, you may wish to be careful about editing an article of which you have a significant conflict of interest with. All additions should meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS at least. Also see WP:COI. Finally, deleting a page must be done through WP:CSD or WP:AfD, but there's usually no need to do so for simple editing of information. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that user accounts should not be shared among a number of editors, each editor should have their own account. Please see WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the article is the Salisbury International Arts Festival, and 85.189.161.237 is wondering why xyr wholesale copying and pasting of a promotional press release into that article was rapidly reverted. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you rotate images somehow

Sorry I put this here. I was not sure where this would be appropriate and it's just a real quick simple question.

Is there some way that you can rotate images? I'm trying to take an American flag image and put it downwards like it's up on a flag pole (with the union at the top). Is there any way I can add something to the code to make it do this?

-Axmann8 (Talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

right|thumb|upright|60px

Only by manually rotating it and uploading a new version. Although, would File:US Flag Vert.png be what you're after? – iridescent 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Eolld

I am posting here upon the advice of others, forgive me if this is the wrong place, and please point me to the right place! This user has made no contributions other than nominating articles for AfD, seems rather suspect, which may be worth looking in to? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

They all look like "legitimate" AFD taggings, in that while they might end up as keep, in every case one can see why someone might think they should be deleted. It may well be an IP regular who uses the account solely for AFD tagging (as the process involves creating a discussion page, IPs can't tag for AFD/MFD). – iridescent 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just felt that to be on the safe side, it was worth bringing it to someone's attention. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a place for competition

Resolved

Nothing to worry about Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to [64] a part of Russian National Student Competitions in English Language would include writing Wikipedia articles "about themselves, their team or their University" (thanks to User:Torin for heads up). While articles about Russian Universities are badly needed, I think we should delete or userfy the articles "about themselves or their teams" per A8. If somebody could contact organizers to inform them about WP:N it would be great Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• … and about Wikipedia:School and university projects as well. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have phone to Tolyatti to the organizers. The alarm was false: they would use their own university wiki and would not interfere with us Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

August–December 2007 in Iraq

An anonymous user (76.190.143.147) has spent most of a day adding every piece of bad news from http://antiwar.com and removing any good news. I warned them that their edits might get reverted on their talk page, but they have continued their edits in the same manner... I considered reverting the edits myself, but due to the sheer magnitude of effort they have put in, I thought I would get a little backup first. --jhanCRUSH 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted him (as has another editor). I'm not inclined to protect the page because that is unfair to whoever is adding the material. Hopefully they will come to the talk page and discuss changes. For the life of me, I can't see why we have an article like that. Oh well. If this continues you can ask to have the page protected over at WP:RFPP. Protonk (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it appears that these edits have been going on for some time at 2007 in Iraq and that recently, 2007 in Iraq was split into monthly articles due to its length... I have started a discussion at Talk:2007 in Iraq where I have proposed undoing all of these edits and putting them back into one article. --jhanCRUSH 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Arlington Cemetery (Washington Metro)

Resolved

 – Taken to WP:3O. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As per the page their is a difference of opionion between myself and user:SchuminWeb over the picture in the infobox. The third party picture which i added to the page has been repeatedly reverted by the said user, even though the picture (Arlington Cemetery Metro station.jpg) appears to be of superior quality. It seems the only reason why this image has been reverted is due to the fact that the picture prefered by the said user (picture Arlington Cemetery Metro.jpg), has been taken by him. Can an admin please take a look at this issue to end this once and for all. thanks--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You could - and probably should - try other methods of dispute resolution first; I'd suggest a third opinion as a good starting place. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I see you've now done, thanks. WP:3O may not resolve this, but it should be a good basis to proceed with other forms of dispute resolution. Administrators typically won't use their admin powers in content disputes, so WP:3O is a better venue for this matter than WP:AN unless the situation deteriorates markedly. Good luck! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC) not an admin, by the way.

Thanks for the advice.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I've marked this as "resolved"; if WP:3O doesn't work and you exhaust other forms of dispute resolution I guess open this again? Until then, good luck! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Bulldog123#Signature

Resolved

 – Precedent is that this is an RFC issue, not an AN/ANI issue as long as they use their full name, which Bulldog123 has now done. Unsure if an RFC ever occured. –xeno (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC) User has also agreed to add a link. –xeno (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It did: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have anything to do with this thread's subject though. –xeno (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bulldog123#Signature. User made his discussion page signature non-clickable (s/he has disabled the link to his/her user and talk pages in his/her signature) and seems not to want to change it back despite requests from at least two admins. Please advise if this is the wrong forum for this incident. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this has been discussed before and people are allowed to do this as long as they aren't signing with a different name than their account name. It's annoying as hell, but it seems people have been granted license to be annoying. –xeno (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He is signing with a different name than their account name (User name is "Bulldog123", signature is "Bulldog" with no link). That's a problem. So is his non-sequitur response to admins asking him to remedy that. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the user must use their full actual username rather than a short-form. I've left the user a note to this effect, whilst notifying them of this thread. –xeno (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I added the three numbers. Satisfied? It should be noted that Badagnani has a certain amount of animosity toward me because of content disputes and only bothers with posting this to continue his trail of intimidation. Bulldog123 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is written at WP:SIG#Links that at least one of either the user page or talk page must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, making signatures useful has nothing to do with anyone's animosity. It's just a basic element of Wikipedia courtesy. Don't worry, you're not "in trouble" over it or something. Still, you really ought to make it link to your user page or talk page, unless your goal is to be a jerk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this report has very much something to do with Badagnani's personal vendetta, given the fact that this report was made after Bulldog123 commented about Badagnani's mediation and behaviors and ongoing disputes on List of Hungarian Americans where Badagnani happened to violate 3RR again right after his recent 3RR block. He is luckily not blocked yesterday for the disruption btw. Besides, since Badagnani has known that two admins already started a discussion on the signature with Bulldog123 about 18 hours ago on the user's talk page, why he needs to raise the issue here and even to WP:UAA as mistreating Bulldog123 (talk · contribs) like a vandal with an inappropriate name[65]? This report is a tit-for-tat drama. If he really concerns about Bulldog's signature, he should've talked him directly first, not with this way.--Caspian blue 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Caspian blue. I'll reiterate: Making signatures useful has nothing to do with anyone's animosity. The report here may have been filed as part of a campaign to blow up the sun, but that's not at all what I was talking about.

Be careful, by the way, that you don't come across sounding just like Badagnani. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate; The matter has been already discussed at his talk page. There is no need for you to accuse Bulldog123 of being a jerk for the signature. It is not a best way to handle the matter and I expect objective eyes from you. As for the last sentence, I suggest you to study Badagnani's contribution further. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse Bulldog123 of being a jerk. I said that if his goal isn't to be a jerk, then he ought to link to his user page. I fully assume his goal is not to be a jerk, and that he'll therefore realize that it's helpful to include the link, and include it. I also respect him enough that I brought the matter directly to him on his talk page, with a direct question. If there's something I'm missing, I'm sure he'll apprise me of that.

You might as well know, given recent history, that I'm already watching Badagnani's contributions, and that when I say "come across sounding like Badagnani," I mean making these accusations, rather that handling disputes in a different manner. I suggest that you handle these disputes in a different manner, but we've already had this conversation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because my AGF to Badagnani is really dried up after my good faith advice on OTRS image failed. (ironically the user has been still following almost every my edits to cuisine articles) I am also disturbed by his attempt to divert from his various problems on the spot light. Anyone who can't assume good faith and see others in disagreement with him as enemies, does not deserve constant generosity any more. I think I'm done talking with you on this user. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you are. I didn't think I was talking about anyone's AGF to Badagnani. Weird. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:ANI#Persistent "Filibustering" of List of X-American sourcing that Bulldog123 has raised.--Caspian blue 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

99.249.224.61

Could an admin check in to this users actions, as they seem to be engaging in disruptive editing ([66], [67] [68]. I originally reported it to WP:AIV, but removed it as didn't seem to constitue vandalism. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Singnel (Singapore) blocked

One of the largest ISPs in singapore is Singnet. However, edits are disabled due to vandalism and such and the block implemented is quite harsh (since last year, 2008). It's not right to block the whole userbase from editiing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kth6 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which IP are you referring to? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

For several days, in the Derby of the eternal enemies, User:Galis and an IP editor (I don't know if they are the same person) have alternately started an edit war removing a particular paragraph of the article which is well sourced, due to their fanatism and without any serious argument. Could anyone help with it? - Sthenel (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an improper venue for this. Looking at the page, page history, and talk page, this is a content dispute that could be resolved at WP:3O, or if the parties are uncooperative, try WP:RFC. You should be careful at this point not to violate WP:3RR, even though it is over a period of a few days it can still be applied to all involved editors. --64.85.215.3 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New mail handling procedure

The Arbitration Committee receives a substantial amount of e-mail each day on its mailing list, arbcom-l. To streamline the process of handling arbcom-l traffic and improve response times, the Committee has adopted a new procedure for handling incoming mail, which supersedes the current mailing list coordinator position.

The procedure was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Stephen Bain, Wizardman

The Committee wishes to thank Deskana for his diligence as mailing list coordinator over the past three months. Deskana went above and beyond the call of duty in continuing to assist the Committee despite having no obligation to do so following his retirement; if not for his efforts, the Committee would be in a significantly worse position at the moment.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure

One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.

The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Stephen Bain

The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: FayssalF, Vassyana
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Risker, Stephen Bain

The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Five years" as a block option? Is it necessary?

I noticed "Five years" as a block option recently on the block form, and in looking at it for a while, I was like, "why?" After all, we can't block an IP address for more than a year at a time (unless there's been a change that I don't know about yet), and for a registered user, five years (aka half a decade) might as well be indefinite. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When a vandal has gone beyond the year limit, I see 5 years as the escalation in the block. Some IP vandals should be blocked indef, but 5 years is the next best thing. For everyone else, a link to this block would be helpful. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 22, 2009 @ 21:43

You *can* block a user for 1 year, 3 months, 12 days, 7 hours and 28 seconds. Doesn't mean you have to though.... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is commonly used when issuing a {{blockedproxy}} block. Tiptoety ^talk 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandals should never be blocked indef and rarely long term, instead they should blocked based on the nature of the assignment of their IP address. Five year blocks are only really suitable for open CGI proxies on static professionally hosted server IPs. I tend to use this option a lot, but I don't think it should be a generally available option as these are rarely correctly identified, and many open proxies are not of this type. It's very rarely suitable for other types of block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's more what I'm getting at - it shouldn't be on the drop down menu. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always keep it on the dropdown with a warning. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

People can just type any duration they want there. I live the option of 5 years, though I have not yet used it. There is no problem with it being in the drop down menu, we can resist the temptation when we need to. Chillum 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:BEANSY perhaps, but yeah, it serves a purpose, so I don't see a reason to remove it. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything that goes past 2012 doesn't even make any sense to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Three years is the new five years. John Reaves 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because, of course, we'll all be dead and gone thanks to an asteroid commissioned by the 2012 Olympics committee to avoid any scrutiny about schedules. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we could remove the five-year option and replace it with "until December 21, 2012". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think five years is far too long of a block duration for an IP. Actually, I'd say anything longer than a year is excessive (outside of exceptional circumstances). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that 5 year blocks are only suitable for open proxies. Since blocking open proxies requires a certain about of technical knowledge I think we can trust people doing it to be able to type in their own block lengths where appropriate, so there is no need for it to be in the drop down list. --Tango (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the 5 year option in the drop down box. I have not used it yet, but when I do need to it is nice to know it is there. I don't need any pressing need to remove it. Chillum 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls into the category of fixing something that ain't broke. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But of course, I agree with Tango. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question - Since open proxies are normally frowned upon, why not block them indefinitely? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 03:52

Simply because they do not remain open proxies indefinitely. The vast majority of open proxies IPs are not open proxies after only a few months. This is especially true for Tor proxies, zombies, vandalbots, spambots, and misconfigured squids. One of two things happens: either the IP is reassigned (see [69]), or the proxy gets closed and the IP is no longer available to abusive users. The same logic applies to normal IP vandals, including the ones used for sockpuppetry or death threats. Even professionally hosted server IPs get reused after some time; they can also be blocked longer because they are likely to remain relatively static but the collateral is likely to be less. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some reports regarding indefinite and excessively long blocks at WP:DBR. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think Pedro's option mentioned above should be in the dropdown menu as well. Keeper | 76 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Necessary" I don't know about. "Useful" yes; approprite to have as an option, I think so. I've been an admin since early '03, and sometimes put repeat vandal ips on my watchlist. I've had some ips go from 1 day block through the gradual steps to 1 year block-- and then come back vandalizing more each time the block expires. There are ip#s that have been vandalizing for years whenever they're not blocked. Policy is not to indef block non-proxy ip#s. If the vandal ip# vandalizes yet again after the second year long block expires, why not give 'em 5 years time out? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the gods might consider it to be hubris. Otherwise, I can't think why not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It all depends from what one thinks the mathematical progression actually is. I made a 1 year block of an IP address not so long ago (for persistent vandalism over a period of 4 months, starting up where xe had left off each time the prior block expired), and I noticed in the block log that the account had exactly followed the pattern 1 day—1 week—1 month—1 year. The next mathematically logical length in succession after that would be 1 decade. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Of course, use of this option would be very rare, but I don't see why its existence is problematic. Heh, this'll shock you - in 2007, I think it was possibly to block someone for up to 38 years. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You can do that today as well, AFAIK, there is no upper limit on the "other time" option. If you want to block for any arbitrary time, you can... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• As long as administrators generally know that the 5 year option should only be used for open proxies, I don't see a problem leaving it in there for the convenience of admins who work on rooting out those same open proxies. –xeno (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I am not knowledgeable enough on open proxies to make the determination so I avoid those and have never used the 5yr option (but was tempted once on a returning two timer for two consecutive 1yr blocks). Leave it there. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that we block named accounts as well as IP addresses. So only looking at it from the point of view of whether it is appropriate for IP addresses is missing half of the potential uses for the drop-down list item. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked a few school IPs who vandalized right off one-year blocks for five years, and I haven't had anyone complain. I really don't see a problem with doing this to fixed IPs that only vandalize over and over again ... I think using longer blocks on school IPs has measurably reduced the vandalism we deal with. And some admins were already doing this before the "5 years" option began appearing in the dropdown box months ago. If you want the five year option to be available only for open proxies, have the block page say so because I don't think a lot of admins, especially those of us who are out at the front, know this. Or better yet, take it out of the dropdown box entirely, or limit the maximum block time to a year. As it is, there's nothing to let people know it's intended only for open proxies. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused

Resolved

 – Trolled by yet another sock of Tom Sayle//roux   15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I redirect my page to my talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwps (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You ought to be able to be. Try opening the page for editing, removing all the text and replacing it with #REDIRECT [[User talk:Tmwps]]. In future, you might want to ask questions like these at the Help Desk. Regards, Skomorokh 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

However, please be aware that you cannot redirect pages from the mainspace to userspace. TNXMan 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please close this?

Resolved

 – Dealt by ChrisO, move proposal closed as WP:POINT. Húsönd 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Greece#FYROM about having the article conform to Wikipedia:Mos#Internal_consistency and make all mentions on the article to the country "Republic of Macedonia" use this name instead of the persistently-pushed-by-Greek-editors "FYROM". Obviously the Greek editors take this matter quite personally and the discussion has quickly spiraled into personal attacks, and now one of the disgruntled editors has decided to propose moving Republic of Macedonia to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia here. Clearly a pointy and vindictive action following an exchange of arguments with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise. The proposal is not listed at WP:RM, and it is just bringing more drama and hatred into the discussion. We need an uninvolved admin to quench some users' nationalist outcry and POINTy reactions so we can try to have a peaceful, civil and serious discussion on the matter. Besides, WP:ARBMAC could have some enforcement. Húsönd 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of second injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

The Arbitration Committee previously adopted an injunction passed on March 6, 2009, directing MZMcBride to refrain from using automated tools such as bots or scripts to delete pages while the case was pending. The purpose of this injunction was to allow time for the committee to address issues concerning MZMcBride's mass deletions of pages, which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy.

Since the injunction was adopted, MZMcBride has deleted hundreds of additional pages, sometimes at a rate of dozens of pages per minute. MZMcBride has explained several times that these deletions have been effectuated using tabbed browsing, rather than by a bot or script. However, at least some of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction.

Accordingly, MZMcBride is directed to refrain from deleting pages while this case remains pending, with the exception of obvious attack, nonsense, or vandalism pages. There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.

This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect until the case is closed. It does not reflect any prejudgment of the merits of the case. The committee shall take reasonable steps to expedite the resolution of this case, thereby producing a final decision that will supersede this and the prior temporary injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration Enforcement

This noticeboard needs a serious influx of fair-minded administrators. As it stands, administrator Jehochman is practically having to enforce arbitration rulings single-handedly. Thirty-three editors concurred with the idea that more administrators are needed at the recent RfC, yet there are few non-Arbitrator administrator comments at WP:AE at present. I appreciate that arbitration enforcement is a quagmire few wish to get involved in, but this situation is untenable. Please consider helping out. Sincerely, Skomorokh 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to helping out, but most requests do not provide all of the information required per Wikipedia:AE#Using this page and/or are not compiled in an useful fashion (who violated what remedy by making which edits [diff]), so I tend to ignore them. There ought to be a template...  Sandstein  17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted what I thought was a well-formed request on AE several days ago, containing case, remedy, prior topic ban, and current diff showing violation. I was dismayed that it was ignored by enforcing admins, and bot-archived with no action either way. A template would have at least informed me that I was barking up the wrong tree. Skinwalker (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh; Hardly anyone is willing to do arbitration enforcement, and yet there are always people willing to critique someone else's enforcement action. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

This started as a result of image reviewing at Featured List Candidates on en wiki but I know it's a problem other places. This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought.

• Please centralize this discussion here: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite schoolblocks

Resolved

 – Most unblocked, let's see how it goes. yes, i have too much good faith =) –xeno (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across a bunch of indefinitely blocked IP addresses blocked with the templated reason {{schoolblock}} and as far as I can tell these were not OTRS requests. I think they should be unblocked as they've been in place since 2007. No prejudice to reblocking with an expiry if they resume vandalism. This came up because of a seemingly good faith request here: User_talk:216.120.198.130#Long term block. –xeno (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

• 193.63.87.227 ChrisO 20070226123640.00 schoolblock
• 206.176.111.212 ChrisO 20070226182141.00 schoolblock
• 216.162.84.225 ChrisO 20070226195622.00 schoolblock
• 4.2.176.222 ChrisO 20070227141541.00 schoolblock
• 170.161.70.98 ChrisO 20070227163507.00 schoolblock
• 168.212.152.20 ChrisO 20070227164240.00 schoolblock
• 164.58.184.212 ChrisO 20070227194436.00 schoolblock
• 72.2.102.246 ChrisO 20070329132857.00 schoolblock
• 202.146.15.20 ChrisO 20070515090723.00 schoolblock
• 142.22.16.58 ChrisO 20070426184518.00 schoolblock: Incessant vandalism unblocked with blessing of blocking admin
• 83.31.112.163 El C 20070929090203.00 schoolblock unblocked, user had no contribs (oversighted?)
• 64.56.135.200 Ilmari Karonen 20070214190558.00 schoolblock
• 209.188.169.34 Ilmari Karonen 20070506114002.00 schoolblock unblocked by blocking admin
• 198.236.64.24 Jossi 20070601194730.00 schoolblock
• 38.116.200.68 Jossi 20070604160351.00 schoolblock unblocked (admin retired)
• 62.171.194.4 Netsnipe 20070309170114.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.5 Netsnipe 20070309170129.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.7 Netsnipe 20070309170141.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.8 Netsnipe 20070309170155.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.10 Netsnipe 20070309170213.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.11 Netsnipe 20070309170225.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.12 Netsnipe 20070309170243.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.13 Netsnipe 20070309170255.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.36 Netsnipe 20070309170314.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.37 Netsnipe 20070309170326.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.38 Netsnipe 20070309170339.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.39 Netsnipe 20070309170351.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.40 Netsnipe 20070309170403.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.41 Netsnipe 20070309170422.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.43 Netsnipe 20070309170500.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.44 Netsnipe 20070309170506.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.45 Netsnipe 20070309170514.00 schoolblock
• 62.171.194.42 Netsnipe 20070621125518.00 schoolblock unblocked, let's see how it goes.
• 210.11.188.11 Netsnipe 20070327171426.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.12 Netsnipe 20070327171440.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.13 Netsnipe 20070327171455.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.14 Netsnipe 20070327171514.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.15 Netsnipe 20070327171541.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.16 Netsnipe 20070327171557.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.17 Netsnipe 20070327171611.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.18 Netsnipe 20070327171629.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.19 Netsnipe 20070327171650.00 schoolblock
• 210.11.188.20 Netsnipe 20070327171657.00 schoolblock these were requested by school personnel
• 194.83.57.155 Netsnipe 20070605112137.00 schoolblock this one too
• 166.109.124.231 Ocatecir 20070917194053.00 schoolblock unblocked by blocking admin
• 138.37.7.247 David Gerard 20070518201018.00 schoolblock: blocking anon only
• 68.160.100.226 Duja 20070523140043.00 schoolblock: Nothing good ever came from this IP, apparently unblocked

At the very least, account creation should be allowed. I don't know if some are or some aren't, but the one with the unblock request was ACBlocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't enable ACC on a softblock, except under very specific circumstances. You are then disabling autoblock there and allowing users to create new accounts when blocked. However I support asking the admins to undo their blocks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Netsnipe hasn't edited in about a month which is why I brought it here. –xeno (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Account creation is normally disallowed with schoolblocks, because the vandals just continue to create accounts and are even more difficult to keep track of. It's probably worth retrying these IPs. Regarding the 210.11 blocks, see [70]. Regarding the 62.171 blocks see[71]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck the 210.11 from the list as tehy were requested by the school staff. –xeno (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note I've unblocked the specific case and if no one objects I will be unblocking the other IPs that weren't requested by the respective school administration. (I don't see an explicit request by the 62.171 admin) –xeno (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You should probably leave notes with the blocking admins (the ones who are active) asking if they have any objection before unblocking. That way they know what is going on. KnightLago (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. –xeno (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked range

Thoughts on Special:Blockip/62.171.192.0/26 ? –xeno (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been blocked for a few years now so I don't see the harm in removing it and seeing what happens. It's such a small range though, so if the disruption continues from multiple IPs there should be no problem in restoring the block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, so I've unblocked. Is there a way to view all contributions in a range? –xeno (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a javascript gadget under the "User interface gadgets". "Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms...". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why ever block an IP indef? Why not block it for a year? Even schools change IPs, and even if they didn't they do change students. Chillum 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - if we replace it I'd suggest something under 3 years (and I tend to stay below that level for OPs and Tor as well). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I disagree with blocking IPs indefinitely for almost any reason. I think they should at least be reviewed on a yearly or semi-yearly basis. Thanks for the link, RJD. –xeno (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to help find other IPs that shouldn't be indefinitely blocked, see WP:INDEFIP. –xeno (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've been here before

Resolved

 – Talk:Shed (BAND) has been deleted and salted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just flagged this page for speedy deletion. However, the page title seems familiar and checking with the logs, I see the same page was speedily deleted yesterday. However, was it me who flagged it for speedy deletion yesterday as well (I can't tell from my contributions)? If it was, should I take a different action from simply flagging it again? And should the page be protected from recreation for a while? Many thanks, Astronaut (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

someone (a vandle) just recreated it, so tht tag should be ok.  rdunnPLIB  15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

redeleted as I typed.  rdunnPLIB  15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted edits don't show up in your contributions, because you have to be an admin to see them. Hut 8.5 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Coached beforehand?

Resolved

 – Not really sure what happened here, but whatever it was, it seems to be over. //roux   17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Although my edits may suggest that I'm a sock, I was coached by a friend of mine, who is inactive here. I do lurk, and not really edit that much, but will edit a bit more. (Sorry if this seems a bit hasty, I'm posting from a public terminal right now, any checkuser can see my IP.)

I have no malicious or wrongful intentions whilst editing here, but if I ever do come up in checkuser on a shared IP (which is not entirely impossible), please be aware of my edit history first.

Anyway... I've said my bit, got to finish quickly before my session expires! --Samllaws300 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My, what a fast learner you are. Not having edited for two years, and making so many edits in just a couple of hours! ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't have the time to edit, but still kept on reading it. I was coached on Wikipedia! --Samllaws300 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My gut says anyone who says they are innocent before anyone has said they are guilty, is guilty. But of what? Time will tell. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also love that after just a couple of hours of editing s/he put a wikibreak tag on her/his talk page. Promises to be an entertaining day. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm guilty of being a Single-purpose account once! --Samllaws300 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you redirect {{SharedIPPublic}}? It survived a TfD in December -- that TfD was brought up by User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC. Are you related to that account in any way? --64.85.214.236 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And why the edits to an IP sock of User:Sunholm and a MfD of a userpage of a sock of User:Solumeiras? Something smells, but I like the intrigue....tell me more Samllaws300, tell me more. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed
  • Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that this account is User:Sunholm/User:Litherlandsand and it has been blocked. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • This kind of stupidity never ceases to amaze me. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 15:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

71.178.4.149

I think I need an administrator's assistance handling an issue with an unregistered IP contributor. The contributor, who posts from 71.178.4.149, has added the Geographic Location template to well over a thousand articles on U.S. counties.[72] This would be fine, except for two things: a) the user is putting them in the wrong place, and b) the user will not respond to requests to desist or to discuss the matter.

The template is a navigation template, and as such should be located at the end of the article with the others, per the footer navbox guidelines; however, the IP user has been inserting them into a subsection in the body of the article. In hundreds of cases this has resulted in the layout of the page getting degraded, usually by large blocks of blank white space: see Washington County, Blackford County, Miami County, etc.

I appreciate this person's enthusiasm, and I've tried to contact him/her several times on the IP's talk page, but I've been ignored — the edits continue without any change. Perhaps the address could be temporarily blocked (just for a short period) to get the person's attention and encourage him to discuss the matter with other editors, follow the template guidelines, etc.? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily anonblocked to allow for reading of guidelines regarding placement and template additions reverted. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Blatant misuse of rollback

Resolved

 – Rollback rights removed. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bignole (talk · contribs) has taken upon himself to revert 11 of my edits in what is clearly a content dispute 1 2 by misusing the rollback feature [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. Given the clear-cut and deliberate nature of the misconduct, and the extent of its repetition, I ask that his rollback privileges be revoked. Erik9 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Bignole (talk · contribs) of this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor came to the project page saying that Erik9 was basically spamming articles' "See also" section with links to pages that were not directly related to the articles in question. I actually agreed, and explained on Erik9's talk page why I reverted his edits. When someone posted a comment on the project page that a discussion had taken place at one of the templates for deletion, and that there was a move to start including those types of links in the "See also" section I stopped what I was doing (I wasn't aware of said deletion discussion or outcome). Since then, a discussion has been underway as to what links really are relevant to the "See also" section, and what ones are better left for the "Categories". I did not revert all of Erik's edits, and given that this was not some widespread consensus to include those links (i.e. there was no "See Also" section at WP:MOSFILMS) amended, so I stuck to the general WP:SEEALSO guides), it would have been beneficial for Erik9 to at least notify the film community of his intentions (given the fact that just about every film article page did not have said links before he added them). The "rollback" was used the same as an "undo" would have, except given his mass edits it was merely the quicker option - hence why I contacted him directly on the matter about it. That's all I have to say about it, the decision is whatever the decision is. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is a misuse of the tool as it is not blatant disruption to the project. The edits were in good faith, and did not constitute vandalism or anything disruptive. Coupled with some reverts like this and this, I am removing rollback. Please request it somewhere down the line and only use it for blatant vandalism or disruption. either way (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse removal of rollback for this user. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One of those non-controversal requests that no doubt someone will make out to be controversal

Might someone be so kind as to restore Google Watch Watch for me? It was one of the victims of a script delete that was never restored (which makes me cringe at the thought of how many of those are still unchecked). It should be some minor content with a redirect to Google Watch. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the other edits for transparency, so this edit summary now makes sense. At the time of the deletion, it was a redirect to the article Public Information Research, which was deleted two and a half hours before the redirect was zapped. Graham87 12:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we need Google Watch Watch Watch to watch that, which would of course be countered with Google Watch Watch Watch Watch. Who watches the watchmen? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but I do know who polices the police ... It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ltgovbauer

Just wanted to leave a note that I asked Ltgovbauer (talk · contribs) on his talk page to send an email to OTRS confirming his identity as Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. This account has been editing the article about Bauer, and afaict all the information added was valid so I'm not (yet) concerned about BLP. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User should be blocked until he confirms his identity via email. Report the user to WP:UAA citing violation of WP:REALNAME. --64.85.210.208 (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IP account replacing list and table entries

I encountered an IP account which has made more than 100 edits in the last several hours to articles about films, TV series, and actors. See Special:Contributions/121.1.24.106.

The account has a history of vandalism and blocks—but it could be someone else editing under the same IP address—and many of its edits ([84][85][86][87]) consist of replacing entries in tables or lists without (seemingly) any valid reason. It is this pattern of editing that caused to me to suspect that the account may be introducing incorrect information into articles. Unfortunately, it's too late at night and I'm too tired to thoroughly research this case, but hopefully someone can take a closer look at it. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed to be deliberate introduction of incorrect information in at least a few cases. Given the account's past history and the nature of the edits, I think it's safe to assume that the rest are also vandalism. I re-blocked for 6 months (the previous block length was one month) and will rollback all edits by the account. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ltgovbauer

Just wanted to leave a note that I asked User:Ltgovbauer on his talk page to send an email to OTRS confirming his identity as Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. This account has been editing the article about Bauer, and afaict all the information added was valid so I'm not (yet) concerned about BLP. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User should be blocked until he confirms his identity via email. Report the user to WP:UAA citing violation of WP:REALNAME. --64.85.210.208 (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IP account replacing list and table entries

I encountered an IP account which has made more than 100 edits in the last several hours to articles about films, TV series, and actors. See Special:Contributions/121.1.24.106.

The account has a history of vandalism and blocks—but it could be someone else editing under the same IP address—and many of its edits ([88][89][90][91]) consist of replacing entries in tables or lists without (seemingly) any valid reason. It is this pattern of editing that caused to me to suspect that the account may be introducing incorrect information into articles. Unfortunately, it's too late at night and I'm too tired to thoroughly research this case, but hopefully someone can take a closer look at it. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed to be deliberate introduction of incorrect information in at least a few cases. Given the account's past history and the nature of the edits, I think it's safe to assume that the rest are also vandalism. I re-blocked for 6 months (the previous block length was one month) and will rollback all edits by the account. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting biographies in Category:Living people

There are about 30,000 biographies that are not in Category:Living people that need to be examined and put into the category if necessary. The false positive rate is about 1 out of 3. There's no way to automate this—it requires human checking. I've been using AWB to add some of the pages to the category, but it's simply too monotonous for me.

Generally I would just release the list, however, I don't want people to duplicate each other's work by checking the same pages. If anyone is interested or knows anyone interested, please feel free to post here. Even taking a section of the alphabet to check (like all of the Y biographies or something) would be incredibly helpful. It's critical that our biographies of living persons be trackable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do this, and you come across any that are unsourced (but not negative), please tag them with BLPunsourced as well. There are currently only some 10,000 articles in this cat (Category:All unreferenced BLPs), but there are probably some 20 to 30,000 of those (truly unsourced ones, not counting all the badly sourced ones). Negative unsourced ones should be either sourced or deleted of course, but tracking all the unsourced ones is a necessary step in getting them eventually sourced. Fram (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he wants to do it himself... and secondly what you want done can be done by a bot once they are put into the category. All you have to do is take the intersection of the various "missing sources" categories and cat Living people and you have a list of unsourced BLPs. —— nixeagle^{email me} 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My use of "you" was a plural "you", not directed at MzMcBride only. Anyway, the tagging I am doing involves mostly articles without any tags before I come across them. Some 8,000 of the 10,000 tagged articles did not have a "missing sources" tag at all, but neither had they any sources (and I'm talking old articles here, not recent creations). Fram (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did that a while ago: User:Hut 8.5/Unreferenced BLPs. Hut 8.5 07:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride, my suggestion to you is to post a list in project space somewhere that has sections, perhaps 100 items to a section and then invite people to take on a section or two. If you have to put it on more then one page that is ok :). I'll do a section if you do this. I'm sure others would do a section too. —— nixeagle^{email me} 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do we find the 30,000 biographies? i.e. is there a way to run AWB on "People whose living status is not known", or better yet "People whose living stauts is not known, but are likely to be living." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the full list (excluding the ones I've gone through already): tools:~mzmcbride/need-cat-living.txt (kinda large-ish). Don't know what the best way to split it is. Feel free to do whatever you want with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the parameters for the creation of this list? I haven't checked, but subjects of articles such as Harry_Johnson_(footballer_born_1876) and Harry_Johnson_(footballer_born_1899) seem unlikey to be living. Basically, how did you build this list? I'd be willing to help fill the cat, but I want to make sure I know what I'm getting into. Mahalo, MZ. --Ali'i 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The list posted combines a few different methods into a combined list. I looked at pages where the talk page contained {{WPBiography|living=yes}}, pages that contained Template:Birth date or Template:Birth date and age but do not contain Template:Death date or Template:Death date and age, and pages where the person is in a category like ____ births but not in a category like ____ deaths. And all pages in Category:Living people and Category:Possibly living people were excluded (or at least they should be). As I said above, the hit rate I've found is about 2 out of 3. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've went ahead and wrote a script that translated the file on toolserver into something readable and workable with here on wikipedia. I've separated the list into 8 wikipedia pages with sections of 100 articles each. Ideally folks will take a section or two and categorize them as appropriate. Given time this should be done.

• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/1
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/2
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/3
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/4
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/5
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/6
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/7
• User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential/8

Please take a section, look at the article, determine if it needs category living people added, if so add it. Also check to see if it needs sources or deletion. I'll be doing a section myself tonight. Thanks MZMcbride for the list :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like an ideal time for those admins who support semi-protection on all BLPs to do just that as these additional BLPs are identified. Just a thought...Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I did my 100, resulting in 104 edits in an hour, adding missing categories to 76 articles, and 74 of those were missing Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people (counting on fingers and using back of envelope tally; ymmv). Of the other 24, many already had death categories, and there were also some false positives.

Only two were in need of categories to indicate the person was deceased.[92][93]

Based on my sample of 100, 3/4 needed categorisation.

That is definitely a high enough hit rate to warrant people working off this list. Thanks MZMcBride. Hopefully everyone feels very motivated to grab a hundred and do their fair share.

Can we have a weekly update? If we reduce the false positive rate, and find the percentage needing to be categorised into Living people is approaching 90%, I would support adding the category to all the remaining pages without the bot flag, and allowing surprised editors to remove the category if it doesnt apply.

Better to be safe than sorry.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to have a weekly updates, you'd have to be able to mark the false positives (or the checked biographies) somehow in order to exclude them from future lists. And I doubt most people will be as diligent as you were in making a list of false positives. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The worst that can happen is that the false positives are seen by too many eyes before someone marks them as false positives. Ideally if your algorithm can be improved based on the false positives that are reported, other similar ones wont appear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog....

at Proposed mergers, a pretty low traffic page compared to AfD...hey I have an idea...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's a project afoot hoping to tackle the backlog at Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. Hiding T 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromised admin account

Resolved

 – Handled by Cary

Caulde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

IRC nick "Caulde" joined #wikipedia-en-admins and reported that their account had been hijacked. I've blocked the account indefinitely as compromised.

It would appear that the account has been abandoned. A local CheckUser needs to verify that the account has been compromised before a steward can remove its rights. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at his block log? He indef-blocked himself, with a notation that he didn't want to be tempted. Aitas unblocked him. There is only one edit since the 8th of March, and it was a constructive edit. I think we have someone looking to have a wikicide enforced by external means. Horologium (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we talking about Caulde (talk · contribs)? If it has only been compromised recently, it's actions on March 9 should be considered as invoking WP:RTV and admin privileges should be removed anyway, compromised or not. That should sort out the need for CU first. SoWhy 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No use speculating until a checkuser (at least one of which is already alerted) comes back with a result.

SoWhy: By editing again, he automatically uninvokes his Right to Vanish, I would think. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly possible, though there is no way to confirm it by IP info alone. Basically, what I am looking at is every single edit comes from a single IP range before today, and then today the edits come from a different ISP never before used. However, all of the IPs come from the same location. Make of it what you will. Dominic·t 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record: The IP used today is different sevice provider than any other used in the past 30 days, although it is in the same country. Other technical information is also different, which would make sense if a different computer and a different ISP was used. -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have a steward remove the bit, indefblock the account, with a caveat noted on the talkpage stating if Caulde wishes to come back he can prove his identity and all will be undone? Either the account is compromised, in which case it should not have that access, or it is not and Caulde's exercise of RTV applies. Simple and effective. //roux   20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Something similar has happened before while he was editing as a administrator under the username Rudget, where he was blocked and desyoped. Later it was found that the person was editing from Caulde's computer. I can understand once, but twice? Something is fishy here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Caulde's sysop bit, after he proved the account was his, and by private request. Bastique ^demandez 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As a result of Caulde's demonstration of control, and consultation with Cary and MZMcBride, I have unblocked the account. KnightLago (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cary. Majorly talk 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh...--Warpath (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady

Resolved

 – No. — Coren ^(talk) 02:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a quick summary of a proposal to settle a long-running war in the wikipedia articles relating to New Rochelle, New York and surrounding areas. Briefly I propose:

1. that the community unban User:Jvolkblum
2. that the community provide an amnesty to all users who have been blocked in the case, who promise to edit from one account going forward
3. that the community apologize to any users caught up in the mess unfairly
4. that User:Orlady be given a one year topic ban preventing her from editing articles in the New Rochelle area

I believe these 4 actions would go far to settle a bad situation, and to allow a wikipedia community to take hold that would build and maintain New Rochelle area articles. I am told that the extended sockpuppet case associated here is the largest ever in wikipedia.

New Rochelle, New York is an affluent city facing out onto Long Island Sound, just outside New York City limits, with good commuter rail service into Manhattan. Possibly for NYC tax avoidance reasons, and for many other reasons, it has more historic sites, more internet usage, and more new wikipedia editors than most similarly sized communities. A great amount of local history documents including at least one Ph.D. dissertation have been written about the area, providing material for local users, not all available on-line. New Rochelle is a compact geographical area with a university, one or just a few Kinkos, libraries, and other public internet access points, and it is quite likely that different persons caught up in this by their interest in New Rochelle articles would sometimes show the same IP address as others, perhaps making checkuser investigations difficult.

Background, quickly (my perspective): The war started with edits by User:Jvolkblum who was community banned for creating multiple accounts and using them in sock-puppetry. I believe this person is long gone, no longer involved in Wikipedia editing. It is not necessary to go into the exact facts and fairness or unfairness of that original ban. Call that person New Rochelle area Person "A". There has been intense watchlisting and enforcement of this ban. Since then, there have been multiple new wikipedia users Person "B", "C", "D", etc. from, or interested in, the New Rochelle area who have edited articles only to encounter harsh and unfair treatment, including abrupt and rude deletion of their contributions, and often the application of unjustified blocks on their accounts. I count myself in that number, having had edits deleted and experiencing deletion of several articles which I had created or contributed to. As an experienced wikipedia user with plenty of track record elsewhere, I have not been accused of being a sockpuppet and banned, however. Principal enforcing editors have included User:Wknight94 and User:Orlady, "W" and "O". W is no longer active, and has given up adminship. O is not an administrator but has been the most active enforcing the ban and watching the New Rochelle articles recently and probably for the last year.

The reasoning for harsh treatment of New Rochelle-interested editors has often been extremely sloppy, in my view: a person is deemed to be a sock-puppet of a banned user essentially if they show any persistent interest in New Rochelle area articles. A vicious cycle has ensued, in which some blocked users have created new accounts and tried editing again. They may observe that they are not banned, as they are not the banned Person A, and/or they may be simply interested in getting some material about New Rochelle into the wikipedia. Sockuser investigations have been applied to establish that the new accounts are associated with previous accounts caught up in this and in some cases used to justify new blocks. Recently, while I have been watchlisting New Rochelle area articles, a Person "G" and a person "H" have been involved editing and have had accounts linked in and banned. Person G is relatively more interested in Geography matters such as articles about neighborhoods and islands. Person H is relatively more interested in History matters, such as describing the NRHP-listed historic sites in the area. As one or both of these persons is not the original person A, they have not both been banned by the community. At least one has been unfairly linked in and treated as banned, with their contributions deleted. I believe that Orlady in particular recognizes that there are multiple persons involved, and has shown a reckless disregard for that fact. In edit summaries, AfD proposals, and requests for bans, she has knowingly unfairly applied unfair reasoning to justify reverting edits, deleting articles, and banning users. A common fallacy in her claims is that she attributes all previous bad behavior by any and all involved, to any current editor, as justification for preemptively deleting new articles and edits.

Two refrains in W and O defending the prosecution of New Rochelle users have been "looks like a duck" and "These are not innocent victims". To me, it is obvious that there are different writing styles, different knowledge of wikipedia policies and workings, and different skills and life experience otherwise of the involved persons. I think this is obvious to O also. Thus, accusations that they all look the same, duck-like, and must be the original Person A, are obviously false. That many of the edit contributions are not great is obvious. O will be able to provide numerous instances of imperfect sourcing, sometimes plagiarism and sometimes copyright violations in material added. And the opening of new accounts by blocked users has been admitted by them publicly and is obvious. To some extent, however, these bad actions are caused by the prosecution of the case. The use of multiple accounts is caused by the unfair blocking of a user who is not the original Person A, who may be simply focused on getting some worthy wikipedia article started. The prosecution criminalizes their actions. I hate bad referencing myself, and abhor copyright violations and all that, but I sympathize with the offending users who may simply be trying to get something out there, and who pile on more material in their repeated re-starting of articles, in order to respond to previous harsh treatment that they do not understand. Deleting articles on the basis that notability has not been established will tend to lead to re-creations with stronger claims. Then the articles are deleted for being too long, and including arguably trivial material. Deleting articles and edits on the basis that source attributions are not perfect, may have the unfortunate tendency of reinforcing quick paste-ins: why bother to construct careful footnotes, if the whole thing is subject to deletion? When specific footnotes are added but the source is not available on-line, the contributions are deleted anyhow. I believe that one or more of the users thinks that wikipedia enforcers are hypocritical and in violation of site policies, and that plays into their choices to violate site policies as well. I suspect that one or more of the users has played an extended game to provoke W and O. So, they aren't ducks, and they eventually are not innocent.

Disclaimer about O and me: I have had running disputes with user Orlady over various matters, including that I regard her opposition as having succeeded in derailing a Featured List nomination of mine that would otherwise have been accepted. I also have communicated to her that I believe she has detrimentally affected the wp:NRHP community of editors. When I think about some actions taken and words written by Orlady regarding my work and my opinions in wikipedia, I can start to get angry. Eventually, however, I came to understand that Orlady's actions vis-a-vis me, which I experienced as harsh and sometimes vindictive, were not as personally attacking against me as I had first thought. I came to believe, instead, that she seems to treat many people in wikipedia similarly. The bad experiences I had with Orlady allowed me to empathize with the New Rochelle area users, gave me interest to get involved and allowed me to have some good communications with some involved in the case. If requested, I can detail some of this past history between O and me. Evidence of other good wikipedia editors' frustration with O is expressed in O's Talk page and archives thereof. Nonetheless, I have basic respect for Orlady, I believe that her edits have contributed to wikipedia, and I enjoy, to some extent, sparring with her about minor content and wording issues in obscure wikipedia articles. I think i am a better wikipedia editor for her involvement.

A few links and diffs relating to the case include:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum
• Community consensus for original ban
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 21#Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles, a salient discussion in which Orlady made a claim of fabrication of material that was quickly proven to be false

My principal goal is to allow new, or effectively new and inexperienced wikipedia users in the New Rochelle area to edit under one account in wikipedia. User G, in communications on my talk page, has agreed to edit from just one account. The technical unban of Person A, and the amnesty of G and any other NR users who request a single account, is necessary to allow these users to channel their good energy productively, and to permit efficient supervision. To apologize to the ones unfairly treated is simple decency. Perhaps an apology can be presented as a kind of petition. Banning O from editing in this area is needed, in my view, to remove her from involvement that would continue to inhibit development of a good community of NR area wikipedia editors. With these measures together, i think the biggest sockpuppet case in wikipedia can be brought towards closure.

I don't believe I have laid out sufficient evidence for anyone not yet familiar with the case to reach any judgment. But I'll stop now and provide more links, diffs, and explanations later as seems necessary. doncram (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk · contribs) is an experienced NRHP admin and familiar with NY articles, could you ask him to comment on the WikiProject aspect of your claims? MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it would be worth pinging The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) and a couple of the checkusers (Nishkid64, Sam Korn, FT2, Deskana, Dominic) who handled the case. I would be interested in hearing their views on how they determined the various socks. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Daniel Case and these checkusers listed to comment here. doncram (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. No comment on Orlady, but as long as Jvolkblum's still socking (how is five days ago "long gone?"), I strongly oppose unbanning him. →Dyl@n620 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe doncram's point is that the majority of the recent "sockpuppets" are NOT Jvolkblum but others who live in New Rochelle and perforce, have the same ISP hubs. -- Avi (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• So the proposal is to unban a prolific sockpuppeteer, and then make it easier for him to edit by topic banning another user on the basis of a discussion 2 months ago? I really don't understand the rationale for either of these proposals. Mr.Z-man 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, you posted this: "The reasoning for harsh treatment of New Rochelle-interested editors has often been extremely sloppy, in my view: a person is deemed to be a sock-puppet of a banned user essentially if they show any persistent interest in New Rochelle area articles.".

This line of argument is a common claim or misconception; in fact it's as often used in bad faith (to try and allege a block was improper) as not. If you look at the past actions, you'll find that a number of sock checks were undertaken not by people "guessing", but by checkusers with access to the server records. There may be many editors in this town (as with many cities, universities, or other IPs), but the basic premise of your view is a complete misconception, as checkusers address such cases very differently. They can examine and verify considerably more data, including the server logs of edits, and a range of other possibly related or affected editorial activity by the same or other users.

As a recent checkuser on this case I can confirm that the socks of February 23-24 are exactly that - extremely likely ("confirmed") to be socks of the same person, where this is stated, and fairly likely to be socks of the same person where that is stated. The terms "confirmed" and "fairly likely" are used within the norms of the community: that is, it is with an extremely high degree of likelihood not just "someone in the area", not just "someone at the same school" or "using the same library or store", not just "someone who by coincidence has similar data", but the same person or at worst someone extremely closely connected to them, who is treated as in effect co-editing, or editing on their behalf. There is no absolte certainty, but we can often be pretty sure in findings. If you would like another checkuser to recheck this for you, let me know.

Turning next to Orlady, what exactly are the proposed grounds for a "ban". As best I can see the user has accurately targeted socks of a banned user, for others to examine, on several occasions. If there is a good basis for this request, probably you need to present it.

I see it a others have above. This is a prolific, current, hardened sock user and edit warrior, and frankly in view of the history, seems somewhat unlikely to reform into a high quality editor any time soon. If I were asked, I would therefore endorse keeping the status quo. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I do not support a "ban" on me. As for the proposed grounds for a ban, I believe that the fundamental reason wny Doncram has requested that I be banned is what's described in his statement: He doesn't like me (apparently primarily because I opposed WP:Featured list status for a list he had created), because he is inclined to think that "the enemy of my enemy must be friend" he has found common cause with some Jvolkblum socks who he perceives are victims of bullying by me, and he is asking to have the bully banned from the schoolyard. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Unban Jvolkblum? Are you mad? No. 2) Gee, I wonder what the likelihood of Doncream==Jvolkblum is? Seriously, I'm taking bets. //roux   01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is uncalled for in this discussion. Whatever the feelings on the merits of this proposal, I consider Doncram to be an asset to this project as the guy who keeps WP:NRHP running. If you seriously want to make a sockpuppetry accusation, do it at SPI and provide diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't made lightly. Common sense and the faint sound of ducks flying by. //roux   02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else I might think regarding this situation, it is abundantly clear to me that Doncram is not a Jvolkblum sock and is not the sockpuppeteer operating any of the socks in the Jvolkblum case. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been handling Jvolkblum CUs for months now and I maintain that the IP/ISP/location pattern has not changed. I only suggested that it was possible that we were dealing with two Jvolkblum-like editors because of the sheer number of socks I found. From that alone, Doncram began pushing for the possibility that instead of Jvolkblum, I had been blocking dozens of innocent editors from the New Rochelle area. Jvolkblum, in his early manifestations, never operated from one location. He was good at bypassing IP blocks because he had widespread Internet access in New York City and at his home. The socks that I catch even now all originate from the same ISPs and locations of the original Jvolkblum socks, and they also share a penchant for using multiple open proxies (sometimes, I've discovered socks on the same open proxy months apart). As for Orlady, I believe she deserves great praise for her persistence and diligence in preventing a banned user from further disrupting Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

<- If we do anything other than what we're doing now.. How about we leave Jvolkblum banned and forget about him. Then we can deal with new editors involved in these articles based on the nature & quality of their editing behavior and not on how they resemble the edits of the blocked guy.. Except in very unique circumstances (most of which involve WP:OFFICE) there comes a point in time when continuing to sockhunt becomes more disruptive to the project than the behavior that caused the original user to be banned. Not sure if we've reach that point in this case, but it's worth thinking about --Versageek 01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly sympathize with the suggestion that we "forget about" Jvolkblum and give newly registered users free reign in New Rochelle (and other topics of interest to Jvolkblum), but ignoring him will not make him go away. It's clear that Jvolkblum enjoys the game of whack-a-mole, but experience indicates that this user would continue to disrupt Wikipedia even if nobody reacted to his/her disruptions. For a period of several weeks in 2008 I slacked off on New Rochelle for a little while, and my period of inattention led to an extremely complex and labor-intensive checkuser process that netted something like 66 registered sockpuppet accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum#Jvolkblum 9), plus myriad articles that had been tainted by these users' contributions. --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to the CUs who have commented. Orlady isn't an admin, which means all of these blocks have been done by administrators who at the least have reviewed evidence she found and found block-worthy behavior. And then there are the half dozen checkusers who has also looked at the edits and found blockworthy behavior. Far from being an isolated group of people attacking an editor, this is one of the most diverse groups of individuals who have tackled this case. I see no reason to support an unban of Jvolkblum, he certainly hasn't asked to be unbanned and usually unbans are only done when someone seeks to be unbanned. And I see no reason to sanction Orlady who is just helping protect article and who does an excellent job at DYK. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to unban Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think we've already figured out that he was writing poorly referenced articles, plagiarizing copyrighted material, inserting deliberately false content, and whatever else he did that got him banned in the first place. As far as the New Rochelle content is concerned, specifically, we need to continue to be vigilant about it. In fact, anyone who adds anything about New Rochelle sites and who isn't already an experienced, well-trusted user should be treated with extreme suspicion. For example, Leland Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Erin cali70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was proven to be a sockpuppet of Jvolkblum. The same goes for Davenport House (New Rochelle, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Knickerbocker Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lispenard-Rodman-Davenport House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Wildcliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, Thomas Paine Cottage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has more Jvolkblum socks in it than the dryer at Becky Bubbles Laundry Center. Trinity-St. Paul's Episcopal Church (New Rochelle, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a large chunk of its content created by an anonymous user in Latvia, and I don't trust this edit made to Rochelle Park-Rochelle Heights Historic District.

Would Wikipedia be terribly incomplete if it lacked any articles about places in New Rochelle? I don't think so. We don't have a single article on anything in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and nobody has been calling the Wikipedia help desk and demanding that we start articles on those places. The damage to Wikipedia by Jvolkblum far exceeds the incompleteness of missing those articles. (Much in the same way that my admin fiasco in January, in which I lost adminship because I couldn't moderate a debate between professional wrestling fans, obviates any progress I've ever made in writing NRHP articles in Minnesota. Besides, nobody cares about those articles anyway.) I think we should salt the earth as far as anything in New Rochelle is concerned. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's way off. New Rochelle is very notable, and whether its constituent article topics are notable, well-written, well-referenced, or copyvio should be taken on a case-by-case basis. While evidence of a pattern of editing may be a reason to run a checkuser, New Rochelle isn't in and of itself a valid pretense for anything. It's a big city in a huge metropolitan area and we should expect many unrelated editors to be involved in editing it and related topics. Andre (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Notability aside, Elkman brings up a good point. What started me deleting all Jvolkblum-created articles sight unseen is that he invariably turns them into wild battlegrounds. Regardless of whether or not someone takes responsibility for the new articles, each one of them becomes infested with IPs and/or CU-proven socks warring on a variety of issues. Throw in the penchant for plagiarism and copyvio, etc., and the articles become too much of a liability to keep. It hasn't been a popular view, but the quietest the situation has ever been was when I started deleting all of the socks' work. It's a proven tactic and sanctioned by WP:BAN. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So the War on Trolls and Banned Users takes precedence over minor, trivial things like improving the encyclopedia. Destroy the village in order to save it! *Dan T.* (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does it count as "improving the encyclopedia" to create articles on obscure historic sites? A poorly referenced, plagiarized article about a post office in New Rochelle is bad editing and goes against a lot of Wikipedia policies. Even if those articles are correctly referenced and created by legitimate users, who's going to bother reading an article about a water tower in Kanabec County, Minnesota? People are more interested in who's wrestling this week. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break in Doncram/Jvolkblum/Orlady discussion

Doncram's proposal is too sweeping if he just wants to rescue a few innocent users. I notice that he was trying to negotiate with a specific New Rochelle-area user at User_talk:Doncram#Your attention would help. That person self-identifies as a grade-school teacher in New Rochelle. If that person were willing to provide additional details about themselves to a checkuser, there might be an opportunity to get them going with a registered account, even though they seem to confess to using open proxies in France to edit Wikipedia. Also somebody would need to check their edit history to see if it was free of Jvolkblum-type problems. Since they are writing to Doncram from a throwaway IP, they would need to reveal some believable data about their past identities. If this is really Jvolkblum, past experience suggests he will be unable to engage in rational dialog, so this is an easy test to perform. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I advised Doncram before he started this discussion, the "specific user" that Doncram has been talking with at User_talk:Doncram#Your attention would help (the one he calls "Person G") is a behavioral "dead ringer" for User:FlanneryFamily, who was the very first Jvolkblum sock I encountered about a year ago. Compare the IP user's recent edits (in this set of diffs) to List of New Rochelle neighborhoods with the work of User:FlanneryFamily in this old version of City School District of New Rochelle (which version was the result of many edits by FlanneryFamily and a variety of IPs over a period of a few weeks in February and March 2008). Both sets of edits are characterized by the sabotaging of wikiformat and the addition of complex external links pointing to online maps and satellite images. The new IP user's fascination with New Rochelle zip codes was also a characteristic of several Jvolkblum socks (who, among other things, have created articles about zip codes and maps of zip codes). --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Two points; per WP:SOCK if another editor (incidently on the same isp hub) starts editing in the same manner of a banned user within the same subject areas then they are decreed to be socks or meatpuppets, and also in the same regard, before the community apologises to them, these same independent editors who contribute via ip addresses from the same ip hub on the same subjects in the same manner as a banned editor should apologise to the community in acting in such a way to bring suspicion upon themselves - and perhaps they could all, independently, explain why they have not created user accounts so they may edit without the inconvenience of ip blocks... Nah - kudo's for Doncram's application of AGF, but I think his trust has been abused in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Orlady is one of our best, most scrupulous and fair editors and totally focused on the integrity of our content. I find it very hard to believe she's ever been abusive in this or any other situation. I can't think of a better editor to watchdog a controversial article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Oppose any sanctions for Orlady. I had to stubbify an article a sock of this fellow created a few weeks ago, Neptune Island (Long Island Sound). It claimed this "is" an island (apparently it "was" an island) had a lot of historical trivia that was not reflected in the citations provided), lots of tangential unverifiable information about ferrys, and how the ferrys were constructed, and who owned them, and, blech... This is the sort of contributor that does much more harm than good, in a deceptive fashion no less.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

cmt and I'd like to ask doncram, at this point, why he would make this ridiculous proposal to unban a user with over 200 [94] CU confirmed socks, and who knows how many more that are unconfirmed as of yet? That level of gaming goes past the point of no return. Trust can never be regained at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Consensus seems clear to adopt none of the proposals above, except for #3, which is already standard practice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User Jibkid, 419 scam

Resolved

 – Almost certain advance-fee fraud deleted. — Coren ^(talk) 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jibkid created Yoga_Joseph which very much appears to be an article that only exists to bolster credibility for advance fee fraud. Article is in AfD, but considering the potential damage this could cause, I figured I'd bring it up here for more immediate action. Gigs (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, page has been stubbed. Action still might be warranted against the user. Gigs (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to have a stern word with them if you like, I won't complain! At this stage, I don't think enough disruption has been caused to warrant further action, at least that is my opinion for what it's worth. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The real musicians

Section heading added by Lambiam 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I took note of these rules but let me say something.On wikipedia except classical composers who really are sacred monsters of incontestable value(J.S.Bach,Mozart,Beethoven,Mussorgsky,Tchaikovsky,Vivaldi,Rossini,Chopin,R.Strauss)to name just a very few of them and which the world has forgotten them totally and also except american jazz musicians who really are vallue,the rest,most of them who appear on Wikipedia are just normal and bellow the value level.They can prove with tons of papers and cd´s,concerts,mtv´s videos without any value,that they have references,and that can earn millions dollars.One thing can´t they prove:THE REAL VALUE and TALENT that is NONEXISTENT.I know many such persons.All they´ve put on wikipedia is just lies.Except the papers, these people can´t never,ever prove theirs TALENT or if they are suitable for this profession called MUSICIAN,profession that today is rolling in the mud by anyone. I am from a family of musicians(the real ones),I studied classicaly violin,music theory,harmony and composition(on real),can always prove it,I played all my life only in professional context(studio recording,live concerts,only with best musicians,as jazz instrumentist and many times as classicaly violinist in symphony orchestras).I am also high class arranger - pop,classicaly,jazz).But in Wikipedia´s opinion such musicians do not deserve to be on files. I don´t mind att all,but I wanted to get aware my opinion about all this shit and don´t forget:I will remain the same professional musician who love and respect my job and who never failed to prostitute for money´s sake. Thank you for you took your time to read my lines. M.Ilie --Prodipe (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)