cobenobo needs to delete his comments and delete his account. |
|||
Line 572: | Line 572: | ||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Comments to be erased and account deleted == |
|||
I've laid comments in various talk pages such as the Australoid talk page. I wanted to know how I can delete my comments because I don't want my comments on any of the talk pages on any site anymore. I also wanted to point out that before I had an account name "bcr" and I wanted to get permission to remove the comments I made on talk pages for the Australoid article, the hutu article, the paul kagame article, the tutsi article, the robert chestagu article, and the rush limbaugh article. I also wanted to know how I can have my account deleted. I don't want to have an account on wikipedia anymore. bcr was just a name that I had and I just want to remove those comments. But the current account I have under the name "cobenobo" is what I want deleted.[[User:Cobenobo|Cobenobo]] ([[User talk:Cobenobo|talk]]) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:12, 7 March 2009
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation
This seems to be pretty much done. Unblocked user has been reblocked; see further down the page: Wheel-warring by YellowMonkey for the rest of it.//roux 19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A chain of administrators recently have been busy blocking sockpuppets of user:Melienas. He/she is not recreating accounts in bad faith, as is clearly evident from his/her openness about it. For this reason, and based on what I wrote at WP:HD#How to prevent a vicious circle of account creation and blocking, I would therefore like to unblock one of these accounts. I'll watch that account and nudge them towards becoming a normal editor. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem here is the use of sockpuppuets. YellowMonkey initially indefinitely banned the user due to the nature of his edits, inclduing repeated WP:BLP violations. If you see the edit summery one of his socks used here [1], you can understand the type of user we are dealing with. Unless their initial block is overturned, per banning policy, they are not allowed to edit pages on this project anymore. Therefore I don't think the ban should be overturned. The orignal account's unban request was denied by Sandstein this morning [2]. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not. I have myself blocked people before. That is just an appeal to ridicule. I think my point is clear, that blocking is not the panacea, and it is a particularly bad idea if different partisan opinions in a heavily disputed conflict are involved. It's futile to try to enforce censorship by blocking accounts here. — Sebastian 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't talk about junk science, I have stayed away from that area ever since the incident from which User:Paul August saved me, for which I nominated him for admin many years ago. In the area of this case, I found that only patience with the people behind the accounts helped. I've seen it work with editors from both sides, and I believe it is the main reason why the Sri Lanka conflict has less problems with sockpuppets than other areas. (See also WP:SLR#Why we can do without trickery.) — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem - we know each other well enough to not be offended by such things. And I agree with your point; I'm not completely against all banning. — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) I'm very well aware of what you mean by "repeated WP:BLP" - this is a silly revert war, which we already discussed at length at WT:SLR. As I pointed out there, this would have been easily preventable, if we had stuck to the "Don't re-revert" rule. If you guys had agreed with that, then I would have protected the article in your version.
- The reason given for the indef block of the sockpuppeteer is "sock troll". — Sebastian 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think calling YellowMonkey a "Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues", asking me to take online English lessons because I extensively lack writing skills, accusing admins of vandalism etc etc within the last week are signs of good will. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, these are not nice. But it wouldn't be the first user who started out like this and mellowed down with the help of WP:SLR. As long as we keep hectically pounding the user, it's only human that he/she reacts emotionally. Why not give it a try and break that vicious circle? — Sebastian 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why should we trust that user to behave calmly when all that is asked is basic civility? Don't write that people are "maggots" on their articles and don't create a million other accounts to try to do the same thing. If the user's normal reaction is to melt down like this, I really don't want them anywhere near this project. If you cannot do a basic thing like read what people are criticizing and respond appropriately, you don't get to play here. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The answer is simple: Because it works. Trust me, I have two years experience doing just that here. And please don't be so judgmental about other people who may live under circumstances that you may not even imagine. Are you sure you would be always civil if you experienced this trauma? — Sebastian 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is a noble mission, and an inspiring one. I can only wish for as much patience and dedication as Sebastian has shown in guiding editing in a topic area that could very easily be as much of a disaster as Sri Lanka is itself. If Marinecore88 can come to realize that civility and well-sourced research pays, and that there are two sides to every conflict, (both on and off WP), then I would actually construe this as being, in a small way, part of WP's primary mission to bring knowledge to the world. If s/he can't, well, we just block again. I trust Sebastian, and if he is willing to give it a go, I say let him try. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your votes of confidence. It's deep night in South Asia now, so I'd like to give the blocking admin and the blocked editor a chance to say something before I proceed. — Sebastian 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Got a promise from blocked editor, and the blocking admin is awake but has not objected. I will therefore resolve this. Thanks everybody! — Sebastian 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and .)
Er no, there have been periodic sock bursts from the city of the said sock every now and then, all with intricate knowledge of all Wiki policies. Just the usual rampage from meatpuppets and socks. Seb, you've been had, again. Simply saying that one is sad about some victims of war doesn't mean people are here for fthe right reasons. Quite a few "model" users on that project consistent make synthesis to push their POV, adding massacre cats when no proof of intent vis a vis deliberate premeditating/targeting of air strikes. Most articles on SLR are a joke. Some people might be polite, but given that they are part of the media outlets and PR for some groups in the RL conflict, it's no wonder. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I strongly agree with the first comment in this thread by Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs), as well as this most recent one by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you both for giving me the occasion to counter your opinions with facts that highlight the achievements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation with respect to sockpuppets. In 1996, before the project was founded, sockpuppets were one of the big problems in the SL conflict. A big raid on sockpuppets in fall 1996 did cut down on sockpuppets, but also left good editors with deep scars, such as Lahiru, who apparently had been wrongly accused because of technical pecularities of the IP number system in Sri Lanka. Since the project was founded, this ceased to be a problem altogether.
- The reason for the present problem is that the user was caught in a vicious circle, from which they could not escape on their own. By addressing such issues calmly, we always break the vicious circle. We treat people like people with emotions and shortcomings, not like dreadful demons that need to be banned for eternity. We're not afraid of any bullies or sockpuppets, and we don't give in to any POV pusher. We set clear boundaries. This includes our unprecedented system of classification of sources, which alone reduced the incidence of edit fights dramatically. This will shortly also include our new Don't re-revert! rule, which will effectively eliminate edit warring, including any advantage people might gain from sockpuppets and tag teams. Facing our strict rules, some decided to leave, and others stayed and became better editors. Many, from both sides of the conflict, decided to join the project. I don't think anyone can deny this success.
- Your disagreements with individual users and your assessment of the quality of articles are off topic here. You are cordially invited to bring that up at our project talk page, where we welcome editors regardless of their position in the conflict. But you have to be concrete, as vague allegations are against another one of our strict rules. — Sebastian 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone, it is me Marinecore88, unfortunately my account has been blocked so I made this account (notice the extra 8) to have a opportunity to voice my opinion here. First I'd like to thank Sebastien for his support. I appreciate it very much and I promise to be a well contributing member of this site if given the chance. The two only incidents of vandalism I made were a month ago, but I've not vandalised since and I've taken a serious stance on editing by voicing my opinions on the SLR page. I'm commited to making this site a better representation of what it should be. The first thing I'd like to note is that I am not associated at ALL with Melienas/Meliioure/Sobberrs/Cheares or any other accounts. The only accounts I have are Marinecore88 and this new one. I've been mistakenly marked as a sockpuppet. There is a large tamil population in my city so this maybe why yellowmonkey thought I was related with them (I don't really know how IP's work, but i'm guesing similar ISP's from similar areas have similar IPs? yes? no?), but I have no idea who they are or there stances. Melienas wrote on my talk page about one of the controversial edits but I've not been able to reply because I was blocked. Also, I believe users Sowhy and C_J_M_B, agreed with me that there were no WP:BLP violations, as I had argued on the SLR page. I admit I've made mistakes in the past but I'm ready to be a serious editor, including using the SLR page rather than do these revert wars. I have a strong ability in both english and knowledge on the SLR conflict. I'd like to use this account (or my other one if i could have it back) to help where possible. Also please note again that I am not involved with Melienas/Meliioure/Sobberrs/Cheares so any issues with them still would need to be adressed after you've delt with me, since we are not related at all. Thanks again. --Marinecore888 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats not me if thats what your trying to say. Considering that you've falsely accused me and other users of WP:fringe, Wp:BLP, and vandalism, can you, Snowolfd4, please stop accusing people of being socks just because they have a different opinion than you. Again, Marincecore88 and this are my only accounts. PLease ignore Snowolf4d who seems to have his own agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SebastianHelm#Marinecore88.E2.80.8E.2FMelienas.E2.80.8E.2FMeliioure.E2.80.8E.2FSobberrs.E2.80.8E.2FCheares please read Cheares comment where he acknowledges that I was not part of his several accounts. --Marinecore888 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- From my CU analysis, I've Confirmed that StopGenocide=Marinecore888. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I respect Nishkid64's findings. He has a proven track record of being neutral in the Sri Lanka conflict. It doesn't necessarily mean that Marinecore lied; as I wrote above, the SL system of IP addresses has already burnt other editors. But it does mean that we have to treat the two accounts as one. This is settled, since YellowMonkey already blocked StopGenocide indefinitely for this reason. — Sebastian 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Another sock showed up and started spamming forum shopping complaints against Yellowmonkey, and has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wheel_warring_by_YellowMonkey. When weighing the appeal of a sitebanned editor it's important to double check their assertions before deciding whether to try a test unblock. Sebastian's heart may have been in the right place, but this was not well done. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In general, some administrators are very juvenile and block people needlessly. Then they stick together to justify it. We are editing from the computers of the City of San Antonio. Some of us have been blocked before so much so that it has become a joke, how stupid Wikipedia is. I don't agree with my co-workers ridiculing Wikipedia but I see their point. So please try to act like a real encyclopedia. The fixation about socks is the most juvenile thing. It's because some administrators don't have editorial skill so they resort to "You're a sock". This is too bad. 66.140.241.100 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Tarek Abedrabbo
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I came across the article Tarek Abedrabbo while doing some NPP, and have prodded it. But I'm wondering if this is a nicely disguised attack page. Anyone want to take a look and offer their opinion?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a WP:HOAX, not worth much investigating after Google searches provide nothing. Just warn the user who created the article on their talk page about creating non-notable/unverifiable BLPs. — Moe ε 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me. Thanks.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
User disrupting AfD
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
YSWT (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is the author of the MagicView article, which I brought to AfD based on concerns of advertising and lack of general notability. Aside from attempting to influence the discussion with determined verbosity, he's now inserting comments into the AfD rationale paragraph and overwriting SPA notices (I presume the IP address that's been seconding him is actually him as well). I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to stop, and undid the last text insertion he made... which he has now duly reverted. I'm not losing sleep over the probable fate of the article, but my concern is that the AfD page itself is the procedural record of the deletion process, which will probably end up mangled to the point of uselessness if he keeps it up. Don't know what to do about this (or even if it's an issue at all), so I figured I'd bring it here. My apologies if this is not the right way to go about this. §FreeRangeFrog 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. An experienced closing admin could sort this out in about 90 seconds. 1) view the article. 2) view the keep votes. 3) "case closed". The article is clearly problematical, and no amount of verbiage on the AfD can fix it. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'll stop worrying about it then :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability check on Bleeping Computer
I recently userified this article after speedy deleting it A7. An editor has since made further additions to the page, with an emphasis on finding reliable sources that discuss the topic. This user is now asking me if it should be placed back into the mainspace. The article is now clearly beyond A7, which is good, but I'm still not entirely convinced that it would survive an AfD nomination. As I'm a little bit involved here, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors who are knowledgeable about such things (particularly WP:WEB) could have a gander and offer an opinion on whether they think the article is ready for the mainspace yet.
Apologies if there is somewhere better to post this - the help desk didn't seem particularly appropriate, and I wanted to cast the net wide for some opinions from more experienced editors. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
- I once used that site to clear some adware junk from my PC. So I don't know if it qualifies as notable in general, but in my case it did. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It clearly fails criteria 2 and 3 of WEB, so the question is whether or not it meets the WP:GNG. There is no "gotcha" reference - an article devoted to the topic in a reliable source, so the question becomes "does this satisfy the five pillars anyway" – is this an encyclopaedic topic on which it is possible to write a decent-length, reliably sourced, neutral article that does not engage in original research? At this point, looking at the sources on Google News, I would say that it is not, because the coverage does not go beyond passing mentions. I'd advise the editor to wait until a noteworthy publication gives the site a write-up. For future reference, the usual forum for returning deleted articles to the articlespace is WP:DRV. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 12:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it desirable, given the editor is a newbie, to get some quick preliminary opinions before sending it to DRV, as they can quite often be merciless over there and I don't see any point in wasting their time unless there's a reasonable chance the article will make it through. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
- (edit conflict) If the editor just wants to know if it meets notability, it might also be appropriate to seek feedback in a forum like WT:WEB or some relevant wikiproject or the other, since this isn't an admin issue, per se, and speedies don't necessarily need consensus for recreation. Generally, when asked to userfy articles, that's what I'll suggest. (Quite frequently WP:COIN works, since often I find those asking for userfication are in some way involved with the subject.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi folks, pardon me for sticking my nose in, (having sworn off the drama boards, and de-watchlisting such things), but perhaps I can offer two sides to a "coin" (so to speak). To a computer tech, yes - without a doubt, Bleeping Computer is quite notable. In fact, the very mention of their site on Microsoft alone, is a huge deal (at least for them). There have been many articles about the site in computer niche mags. When us geeks get together, very few folks are unaware of the site. They are reliable, and provide some very valuable resources and innovative information and tools.
- On the other side of the coin, computer related articles can be notoriously difficult to get up to snuff here. Part of the reason is the constant and rapid change in technology, viruses, and resources. Secondly, the technical knowledge required to discuss (or publish) this kind of information often leads editors (main stream as opposed to wikipedians), to avoid such topics in fear of looking like fools. As the article stands now, I would not be surprised in the least if it didn't make the cut at an XfD discussion. I'd probably suggest that the editor look for some assistance at the Computer Project here, or more specifically at the Security project here. The geek contingent at Wikipedia isn't real high, but it does seem to be growing somewhat. I'd suggest the editor keep the article in user space, expand and modify the "Media" section to paragraph form per MOS - get some feedback from some of the other computer geeks around, tweak, and then move to article space. all IMHO — Ched ~ (yes?) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Clusterf#@k
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi all, not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I'd appreciate if some admins would have a look at cluster bomb. A nasty little edit war's been going on there for the last couple of months with all kinds of policy violations, including editors calling each other terrorists. Cheers, Polemarchus (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've protected it for one month (or until disputes are resolved). In the future, report edit warring at WP:AN3 and/or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tarysky
After looking at the block around User:Tarysky, I feel that the "indef" is excessive. I would recommend that this would be shorten to something more appropriate based on the standard scale. The first, and only other block, was for 48 hours and skips standard progression. So, what would the next step be? I really don't know. I would recommend somewhere from 48 hours to 96 hours.
Blocks are preventative. Seeing as how this was the second block, not for a clear case of vandalism only edits, not for a bad user name, not based on mass community consensus, etc, I think that an idef block (practically a ban) is inappropriate. Iridescent suggests that the block may have an "if you do this you will be unblocked" type of clause. I believe that such are inappropriate and go against our blocking policy. By demanding an action in return for unblocking, that is one of the most egregious types of punishing a user that can be accomplished. It is also on the level of black mail and unfair.
I believe that this user has been treated in a manner unbecoming. I am not saying that he does not deserve to be blocked. But, seeing at the level of antagonism by certain individuals, there is enough to see an indef block as highly problematic. I have no plan to fight over this, as I only noticed this and wish to point this out to the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "infinite", Tarysky can post a reasonable unblock request anytime he want. John Reaves 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That would be punitive, not preventative. Indefinite are not to be used to force someone to post unblock attempts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's more than welcome to not post an unblock request too. John Reaves 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what this thread is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's more than welcome to not post an unblock request too. John Reaves 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That would be punitive, not preventative. Indefinite are not to be used to force someone to post unblock attempts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Demanding an action (though I'm not sure that is a wholly accurate judgment of iri's position) is not punitive. Let's say we have a user who uploads copyrighted material and ignores warnings to stop. I feel that it is completely reasonable to block them until they make some response on their talk page noting that they have received and understand the messages. This would be designed to prevent future uploads of copyrighted material, which create work for other editors to flag and remove. In no way is it punitive. Comparing this to black mail is hyperbolic and inaccurate. Indef might not be the right length, but a week or two weeks (long enough to catch the attention of the editor and make it unreasonable for them to simply sit the block out) would work. However, the length doesn't turn it from preventative to punitive. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) If an editor has been blocked for disruption, they will generally succeed in an unblock request if they can convince an admin that they are not going to cause further disruption. That principle applies particularly to indefinite blocks, it is perfectly consistent with blocks being preventative and not punitive in nature, and explaining it to a blocked editor is not blackmail. Having reviewed this particular user's Talk page, I think an indef block is quite appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please find anything in the blocking policy that even comes close to verify what you say is appropriate as determined by the community. I just can't find it, Protonk, and I find that the promotion of it to go against most of our core values. Blocks are not a legitimate means to demand anything from a user. Any demand is a punishment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a diff of this blackmail / punishment. I can't see it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- SheffieldSteel, what are you going on about? I stated that if there was a demand of action for someone to do while being indef, then that goes against our blocking policy because you cannot -demand- anything via indef blocking. That is not what blocks are for. Your comments above suggest that you have not bothered to look at the blocking policy in regards to the topic and concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try to be more clear. Unless you would like to provide diffs to the contrary, I am asserting that no one has "demanded" anything; ergo, no blackmail, no punishment, no admin abuse, no violation of policy, and no reason for this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide a legitimate explanation in the blocking guidelines to justify an indef block of this user, you have no grounds to stand on Sheffield. This block is excessive. I have consulted 7 admins and 4 users in high standing who agreed. This is a proposal to seek consensus on what a lower amount would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try to be more clear. Unless you would like to provide diffs to the contrary, I am asserting that no one has "demanded" anything; ergo, no blackmail, no punishment, no admin abuse, no violation of policy, and no reason for this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- SheffieldSteel, what are you going on about? I stated that if there was a demand of action for someone to do while being indef, then that goes against our blocking policy because you cannot -demand- anything via indef blocking. That is not what blocks are for. Your comments above suggest that you have not bothered to look at the blocking policy in regards to the topic and concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a diff of this blackmail / punishment. I can't see it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please find anything in the blocking policy that even comes close to verify what you say is appropriate as determined by the community. I just can't find it, Protonk, and I find that the promotion of it to go against most of our core values. Blocks are not a legitimate means to demand anything from a user. Any demand is a punishment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to panic about injustices quite yet. Indefinite only means "look, you're not getting editorial access back until you show you can be trusted with it". Indeffing a disruptive user is obviously preventative if it prevents disruption. Blocks like this happen. LessHeard vanU gets the benefit of the doubt to do things like this, but if a concern is raised (like this one by Ottava Rima) LessHeard vanU can explain the action and the folks on AN can review. LessHeard vanU's explanation can be heard in relation to Tarysky's defense (should he produce it), and a more appropriate (if any) remedy can be discussed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- If blocks like this happen, then there is a severe disregard for the blocking guidelines. We are not preventing disruption by blocking to excess. That only removes any potential for the user to contribute and instead encourages them to do things like sock. This is common knowledge, which is why the standard progression of time increases is followed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your first step should be to discuss this with the blocking admin. Have you done this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- This block and the events leading up to it were on Iridescent's talk page. This was known. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your first step should be to discuss this with the blocking admin. Have you done this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) I agree with Deacon. The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future... an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having a user like Daedalus blanking the page and blanking the page only verifies that there was no method or desire to allow for any kind of discussion on the side of those who instigated the blocking procedure. Such actions go against consensus and only verify that this was punitive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- A couple of comments; I don't believe that "Indefinite" forms part of the "progressive" block length durations - it can last shorter than the minimum 15 mins or longer than the standard 1 year maximum. Unless it is being used in conjunction with a community ban, ArbCom decision, or Office action then it lasts for exactly the length required to ensure the discontinuence of disruptive behaviour. To that aspect I would make my second comment; per WP:BLOCK nutshell
Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. |
---|
(my underlining) This is where I suggest the idea of persuasiveness in encouraging a blocked editor to give an undertaking not to continue their past behaviour in any appeal comes from. Who is going to unblock an editor from any tariff who appeals on the basis of "Yeah, I now understand that what I was doing contravenes WP policy and is therefore is disruptive... but I want to do it anyway. Can I please be unblocked?" Along with acknowledgement there needs necessarily to be an indication of intent not to repeat whatever behaviour gave rise to the sanction. Lastly, I would note that I do tend to give out indefinite blocks upon my personal determination of whether the previous recent block (whether it is the only other, or the latest in a long line) has had the desired effect - if it hasn't I do not see any reason why there has to be a continued testing of the resolve of the disruptive editor. If they are prepared to wait out the 24, then 48, followed by 72 hour, then a week, two weeks, a month then three months and then continue, are we then going to see if 6 months or a year will do the trick? If it takes 5 months to dissuade an editor from creating disruption then put them on an indef tariff and let them make the appeal 21 weeks into the sanction, and if it only takes 5 days all the better. Since, of course, I am wedded only to the idea that the indef block is a flexible tool then if a consensus arises that X time is exactly (or close enough) to that which will ensure that future edits from a previously troublesome contributor with be beneficial, then I have no problem with the period of any block I make being altered according (I have no objection to any admin exercising their remit and varying a block I make of my own determination in any event, to be honest - situations and circumstances change, and a different perspective may lead to different conclusions). I hope that people realise that although there is the potential for the indefinite block to be the longest available tariff, it is far more flexible (and therefore conducive to creating the best editing conditions) than the use of increasing sanctions in the face of repeated disruptive behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please find something in the blocking guideline that verifies this use of blocking? There seems to be nothing similar, nor anything deemed acceptable by community consensus on the matter. Your own justifications makes it seem like you blocked via time out, until they "learn their lesson", which is strictly prohibited. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I did. The nutshell, in which I underlined "encouraging change", conveys that sense of providing motivation for an editor to alter their methods. I also see nothing in the nutshell that disallows blocking other than for retaliation or punishment (or being applied too long after the event), but I am aware that policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Change is not encouraged by saying "you are indef blocked until you grovel to get back". Change is encouraged by blocking for 72 hours and saying "if you continue this behavior, your next block will be longer". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, this appears to be getting personal but I shall continue in attempting to discuss this civilly. I have now checked Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and found
(my underlining again.) While a guideline rather than policy, it is linked from the WP:UNBLOCK policy page. It appears that the notion has sufficient traction to be included there. I have now provided two links which I feel provide a basis for my interpretation of the application of blocks - I should now be grateful to be given links to where such opinions are considered wrong, and any place on the encyclopedia where I have used the term "grovel". I should like the last matter attended to first, if possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)...that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead.
- LessHeard, please reread this thread. This is not an unblock request. This is not a block appeal. This is asking for a reduction of time to a standard progression instead of jumping to indef on the second block. And even if you do not use the term "grovel", being on the other end of such a block I can tell the community exactly what is expected. Thankfully, DGG had the courage to stand up against the group of admins who sought to violate tradition then. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have read - and I have explained why some admins (including me) utilise the indefinite tariff at certain times, and I have linked to policy and guidelines. I do not believe it "grovelling" to give notice that one will conduct themselves according to policy, guidelines, and practice - because, pray, what is the alternative? - when appealing a block. If the block is placed as part of an abusive process, then perhaps "grovelling" might be the only way of getting a chance of having a complaint heard publicly onwiki - but blocks placed in accordance to policy need only a polite undertaking to comply with the rules to be considered. No grovelling needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- And many more admin find it to be a serious problem with you doing that. Your blocks as of late have been seen as too harsh by a lot of people. However, as I stated before, this is not about you. This is about the community coming to consensus if indef is acceptable or not and if it should be returned to a standard progression. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have read - and I have explained why some admins (including me) utilise the indefinite tariff at certain times, and I have linked to policy and guidelines. I do not believe it "grovelling" to give notice that one will conduct themselves according to policy, guidelines, and practice - because, pray, what is the alternative? - when appealing a block. If the block is placed as part of an abusive process, then perhaps "grovelling" might be the only way of getting a chance of having a complaint heard publicly onwiki - but blocks placed in accordance to policy need only a polite undertaking to comply with the rules to be considered. No grovelling needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- LessHeard, please reread this thread. This is not an unblock request. This is not a block appeal. This is asking for a reduction of time to a standard progression instead of jumping to indef on the second block. And even if you do not use the term "grovel", being on the other end of such a block I can tell the community exactly what is expected. Thankfully, DGG had the courage to stand up against the group of admins who sought to violate tradition then. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, this appears to be getting personal but I shall continue in attempting to discuss this civilly. I have now checked Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and found
- Change is not encouraged by saying "you are indef blocked until you grovel to get back". Change is encouraged by blocking for 72 hours and saying "if you continue this behavior, your next block will be longer". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is in my opinion a foolish kindergarten tactic to insist on a formal apology. People who intend to go on as before are likely to give an insincere one; people with a reasonable sense of personal dignity but a sincere intention to reform are likely to be affronted. It reminds me of the Judge's justification for the death sentence in "The Fugitive", "the entire absence of remorse". You can't judge people by what they say under such conditions. Not just with OR, but others, I have spent too much time negotiating the exact details of an apology, as if exactly what was said mattered. the only possible value is in throwing it into someone face later: "see, you promised".
- I do not think that blocks have to always be strictly progressive, but they do have to be reasonable and give appropriate chances to show what matters: a change in behavior. . The point of being progressive is to get the point across that we really mean it. Eventually almost everyone gets the idea. Even arb com usually talks about arb enforcement in much more important disputes leading to progressive blocks, up to two weeks.
- As for the actual behavior, I think the source of this is a dispute in the formatting of words in articles on albums, particularly italics and capitalisation. I agree such disputes are a little lame, but i cannot see ever giving an indefinite block to anybody based on things like that, or calling it vandalism. It can bedisruptive, but reacting so excessively provokes further incorrect behavior.
- I am personally prepared to unblock, with the understanding I will block again if there is further editwarring over such details. The time for the reblock would be 72 hours, up from the prior 48. DGG (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't my impression of the reasons for blocking. It might be helpful if LHvU could spell that out more explicitly - perhaps on User Talk:Tarysky. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see the intemperate comment at [9] That would, imho, warrant a level four warning for NPA, or if t here had already been one, a 24 hr block. DGG (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re Tarysky; I took into account the notice on the talkpage prior to my block notice and the interactions with another editor, the message left at AIV when they were reported, the reverting without discussion of other editors, which indicated that the issues raised previously at ANI and which resulted in the initial block were not being addressed. I considered that a short block (although longer) would still be ineffective, but a long one would counterproductive. Therefore an indefinite tariff, which can be lifted as soon as the disruptive actions is addressed, seemed most appropriate. All this can be provided to Tarysky if they choose to exercise their ability to edit their talkpage.
- However, I understood that this was not about this specific block but the use of the indefinite tariff without first going through the process of increasing finite block lengths first. Can I, and the apparent crowd of concerned editors currently alarmed at my actions, request that the basis of this particular discussion be defined so I know how to proceed? Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't my impression of the reasons for blocking. It might be helpful if LHvU could spell that out more explicitly - perhaps on User Talk:Tarysky. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I did. The nutshell, in which I underlined "encouraging change", conveys that sense of providing motivation for an editor to alter their methods. I also see nothing in the nutshell that disallows blocking other than for retaliation or punishment (or being applied too long after the event), but I am aware that policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Ottava is clearly in the wrong here - he isn't even in the right ballpark. There is no requirement to use progressive block lengths, so his argument is wrong from the first word. In addition, the standard requirement for ending an indefinite block is to resolve the potential for future disruption by discussion. In other words, LHVU is right, and Ottava should stop discussing something he/she clearly does not understand. The relevant guidance is at WP:BLOCK#Indefinite blocks. It says "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. ... the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and—if unblocked—to refrain from the problematic conduct in future." GRBerry 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ottave is actually quite right, as is DGG in observing that: "It is in my opinion a foolish kindergarten tactic to insist on a formal apology. People who intend to go on as before are likely to give an insincere one; people with a reasonable sense of personal dignity but a sincere intention to reform are likely to be affronted."
What is this, a kindergarten or a serious endeavour undertaken by rational adults?--Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) - Struck my earlier question, the answer is obvious. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, Ottava is wrong, as are you. There is a huge difference between an apology, which is Ottava's erroneous notion of what is required, and a commitment not to repeat the disruption. The latter is what is required. If they insincerely promise not to repeat their disruption but later do, we say good bye to them forever. If they promise not to repeat their disruption and they don't repeat it, the problem has been solved. Apologies are not relevant to unblocking - they are about repairing the relationships between editors. GRBerry 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- When the community comes together under consensus and declares that indef blocks with the condition of "commitment to be good" is acceptable then I will accept it. Until then, I think there is enough to show that such a thing is problematic and sets up a double standard. I think such requirements also go against AGF, which is one of our core beliefs. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The community did so long since, see the portion of the blocking policy that I quoted. It has been there since at least the last day of 2007 with no significant changes during 2008. blocks]. As of June 2007 the policy was even more succinct "protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely." [10] What has been added since June of 2007 is solely the guidance on when to remove an indefinite block, which remains what it was even before then - when it is believed that the editor if unblocked will not be a problem. GRBerry 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps having an advance degree in English doesn't serve me well, but no where in the above quotation does it say that a statement must be produced by the individual and they can be indef blocked until doing so. AGF would ensure that such a thing would not be necessary. AGF would require someone to believe that the user would already be committed to doing the right thing. AGF would have to be totally removed for your interpretation to go through. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The community did so long since, see the portion of the blocking policy that I quoted. It has been there since at least the last day of 2007 with no significant changes during 2008. blocks]. As of June 2007 the policy was even more succinct "protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely." [10] What has been added since June of 2007 is solely the guidance on when to remove an indefinite block, which remains what it was even before then - when it is believed that the editor if unblocked will not be a problem. GRBerry 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- When the community comes together under consensus and declares that indef blocks with the condition of "commitment to be good" is acceptable then I will accept it. Until then, I think there is enough to show that such a thing is problematic and sets up a double standard. I think such requirements also go against AGF, which is one of our core beliefs. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, Ottava is wrong, as are you. There is a huge difference between an apology, which is Ottava's erroneous notion of what is required, and a commitment not to repeat the disruption. The latter is what is required. If they insincerely promise not to repeat their disruption but later do, we say good bye to them forever. If they promise not to repeat their disruption and they don't repeat it, the problem has been solved. Apologies are not relevant to unblocking - they are about repairing the relationships between editors. GRBerry 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, it seems like there might be stuff going on here that doesn't have much to do with Tarysky. It might be best to let DGG deal with it then. He has, at any rate, promised to keep an eye on Tarysky should he unblock. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was tempted to give GRBerry the benefit of my opinion on his/her evident misunderstandinhg of what's being said here, but on reflection you're probably right; perhaps a case of "least said soonest mended". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we archive this? I don't really see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent developments
I feel that things like this are the result of indef blocking a user without giving them the ability to explain themselves and seemingly put up an impossible standard. When you deny someone the clear time limit you remove any connection and desire that they have to not turn to such actions. This is why indef blocking should not be done unilaterally and should only be done in rare cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think the matter is resolved as they have turned to sock puppeteering, which would result in indef blocks of those accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Because we treated him too impatiently, he tried to evade it--he provoked us, we provoked him, and whoever blocked him and the people who defended it was the right thing to do resulted as they should have realised in escalating the matter. I see the tendency of some of my fellow admins to treat people this abruptly, but I can't defend everyone who is maltreated here any more than I can defend every article that's unjustly deleted. I'm not going to unblock him without support, but I do not think the matter is over. I share the opinion expressed above that there seem to have been some prior matters this was seen in connection with, and I would like to know what they were. The reactions to him are too strong to be rationally accounted for otherwise. If there's something I ought to have known but which might not be politic to say here, please use email.I gather the CUs are fairly sure it is Soccermeko, who does have a terrible record. If so, that does indeed close the matter. DGG (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)- We have quite a lot of those as of late. RHMED is now going down that dark path. Hopefully we can try and prevent the next ones from doing the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- RHMED went about this all wrong. Doesn't he know that old Wikipedians should never die — they should just fade away.... A pity, really. --64.85.216.144 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- We have quite a lot of those as of late. RHMED is now going down that dark path. Hopefully we can try and prevent the next ones from doing the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
CSD Backlog
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
Adding picture
I work for the Tioga Central Railroad and I am trying to upload the newer version of our logo. I uploaded the picture to the wikimedia site but can not change it out. Last time i contacted an administrator and they changed the picture for me, so who should i send the picture to in order to change it out. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jss5104 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest ED attacks
I've been playing whack-a-vandal for nearly two hours over what I'm certain is another coordinated Encyclopedia Dramatica attack. Plausible sounding usernames, vandal articles regarding a non-existent book about Jimbo Wales. I've been simply blocking the accounts and the talk pages and I've been salting the titles as they've been coming in. Anyone with a CU want to run a check on some of these and maybe hit them with a range block?
FYI, the most recent attack came from User:HobbyHorseday. I suspect that there's a sleeper under a similar username a bit farther down the list. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- And a second one for fun, [11]. If there is a common range a block might be nice. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Still another one, but someone else just got it. The title variations have been along the lines of "Jimbo Wales Is A Thieving Cunt" and other such monstrosities. What makes me laugh is the fact that these kids log on, they follow their marching orders, the article goes up, it comes down in about ten seconds and their account is permanently blocked. I once read that the true definition of an idiot is someone who repeatedly does the same thing while hoping for a different outcome. We persist. Back to the new user log. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dangit! Who says Jimbo is a thief! I don't have CU, but I can block with the best of them. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Right on, bro. :) I'm tagging and bagging as quick as they come in. Seems to have quieted down. The first one I blocked was User:Lyger99 and I've requested a CU on that account. Dang, it's harder to file a CU than it is to block the socks, but if we can initiate a few range blocks, it would have been worth it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You have any actual proof these are people coming from ED, other than your own suspicions? Jtrainor (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, just my own suspicions. It fits their MO. All of the pages are basically the same, no one person is likely to have such a broadly shifting dynamic IP nor will a single person (short of a psychopath) would be hammering this site for hour after hour. It's a clear variation on the "Grawp" attacks. I was the victim of a coordinated attack the other day. Multiple usernames, one username after the other either pretending to be the "Pee-Wee Herman" vandal or usernames insulting me. It was utterly relentless for the bettter part of an hour. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't these attacks usually from 4chan? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. I forgot about that charming little group. One way or another, it's still coming. Blocked the first sock at 2359 UTC on the 4th. I just blocked yet another at 0346 UTC on the 5th. Sheesh. Kids. :( --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the checkuser report...and it may in fact be one person responsible for all this idiocy for the past four hours (with apologies to 4chan and ED). No shortage of insanity on the internet, eh? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyger99/Archive & RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). rootology (C)(T) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember WP:BLOCKME?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I recently came across a situation where Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) apparently asked to be blocked and the request was granted. I remembered going through new admin school and reading about WP:BLOCKME and thinking that wasn't right. I went to the WP:Blocking Policy and found to my surprise that it was no longer policy. Looking a little further I found where it went but couldn't find any discussion. Did I miss something? Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would gather someone removed it because it's not that difficult to find an admin who will block you at your request, so the policy wasn't really set in stone any longer. –xeno (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- A user has two options: ask nicely, or do something stupid. All things considered, I'd rather users have two options in hopes they'll take the former. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, in fact, I removed it, saying I'd block anyone who asked. Saves them the trouble of plastering NSFW images across my userpage. I certainly have blocked people on their initiative (this guy comes to mind), so it also isn't policy on the grounds it is not what happens. Why wouldn't you block someone who asked? WilyD 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother investigating. It isn't policy, i'd prefer that people not do it (especially in cases where the user appears to be cruising for a block for unrelated behavior), but I can't elevate that preference to some binding principle. The right answer (IMO) is that we just don't block people. Either they install a wikibreak enforcer, scramble their password and disable email, or just walk away from the project. The kind of person who, when told that we don't do blocks on request, determines that the best course of action is to warrant a block otherwise shouldn't be our guiding light to change policy.
- As for the ikip block itself, I asked the blocking admin and received a prickly response. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to bring up old issues. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahmad Batebi -- He is revising his own page and is changing verified facts with misleading and unsourced materials. Conflict of interest issue.
I have noticed that Ahmad Batebi is editing his own page, and repeatedly replaces verified and sourced information with unverified content that is extremely misleading. In addition, for some reason, he does not want to allow certain information to be posted, despite the fact that the information is extremely relevant, verified, and neutral. If someone wishes to change the story of his own life due to whatever the circumstances of the particular phase in his life may be, that is best done on a personal blog or website, not on Wikipedia. The revisions that Mr. Batebi makes to his own page are not neutral, they present a conflict of interest problem under Wikipedia guidelines, and the fact that they are unsourced and slanted towards what Mr. Batebi has decided is in his best interest at this time in his life only adds to the problem. I find this behavior extremely problematic and would like to ask for a page edit protection or some other type of Admin intervention. --Kindness55 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Bunch of indef blocked IPs need review
We got an email today at on the unblock list for an IP address that had been indefinitely blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me several years ago. On looking further, it seems there were several hundred of these blocked during his tenure as an administrator, nearly 200 of which are still under these blocked. I'm personally sick and tired of looking at block logs, having been at this for more hours than I'd care to mention, but if some really bored administrators wouldn't mind reviewing and shortening or lifting these blocks where appropriate, some potential editors would probably appreciate it. They're all listed at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Indef-blocked IPs by User:Cscwem. Please remove these listings when they are no longer indefinite blocks. Thanks, all! Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- He tends to have less patience for random IP vandalism than most of us do, and most of us don't like it to begin with. HalfShadow 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd gathered that by going through his entire block log... I'd forgotten when I started that he has the highest number of blocks by several thousand, despite having been desysopped for the last several months. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Open proxies - report to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Those which still are should be shortened to 5 years (current duration for open proxy blocks); those which aren't should be unblocked.
- Other IP addresses - I think we should just unblock; however, if they are from IP addresses with a major history of abuse, it should be shortened to a year from the original block time.
- עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd gathered that by going through his entire block log... I'd forgotten when I started that he has the highest number of blocks by several thousand, despite having been desysopped for the last several months. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Request review of speedy close
Hi. I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Scots and Jews as a speedy delete, and my decision has been questioned, so I'm posting here for review. Please let me know if this close was a bad idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW was valid for several reasons. First, the AfD result was obvious. Second, the article was unsourced original research. I see no problem with a speedy delete. Rklawton (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see any problem with a WP:SNOW close there, given that there were fifteen deletion !votes in less than 24 hours - it clearly wasn't going to end any other way given the content of the article, and there was no point in delaying the inevitable in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Bugsferg (talk · contribs · logs) and an IP Template:User3-small has repeatedly deleted ([12], [13] [14]) a section in the Michael Tobias article using the exact same wording to claim that the information is invalid, but is actually perfectly well sourced and does not violate WP:BLP. Bugsferg is actually one of four SPAs involved in editing this article, including the obvious WP:COI creator:
- Gjsm (talk · contribs · logs)
- Sliveytove (talk · contribs · logs)
- Michaeltobias (talk · contribs · logs)
No attempt at discussion of the removal has been made in the article talk page, despite the two reverts so far. I can't help but feel that this is the original author being slightly hoisted by his own petard after creating a vanity piece, but schadenfreude aside, I think maybe protection or a limited block or something is necessary here. What I'm afraid of is falling into WP:3RR and being blocked myself. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked Bugsferg for violating 3-rr (counting edits from his IP sock 76.166.28.203). I've blocked the IP sock as a sock and for 3-rr, too. The information deleted was relevant and had multiple sources, and the material did not seem to pose a conflict of interest, so I restored it. I'll look into the other accounts next. Rklawton (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Users
- Gjsm
- Sliveytove
- Michaeltobias
- are obvious SPAs, but I'd like to see what CU has to say about their relationship. They don't appear to be a part of the current section deletion problem. If they do start up (assuming I haven't blocked their IP), then I suggest requesting a CU. Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. I know Orangemike and DGG have been working on this article trying to make it a bit more encyclopedic (the notability of the subject doesn't seem to be in question), but I figure they are probably not online right now or they would have probably noticed. §FreeRangeFrog 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This issue covers a developing story with professional reputations at stake. In short, it's ripe for BLP escalation. Let's take due care to use reliable sources with all due neutrality. Let's also do what we can to educate the special purpose accounts regarding our policies, guidelines, and remediation procedures. (Note to self) This is not the time for short-hand abbreviations, snippy comments, or short-cuts. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
HBC Archive Indexerbot down ?
The HBC Archive Indexerbot appears to be down/switched off/bored with it's job. It's set to run twice daily but the log says that the last run was 11:23:27 26 February 2009. I left a message for Krellis a few days ago but they don't appear to be around. So, here I am wondering what to do now. Any thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Email is the best way to notify him, aparently. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- ahh..didn't think of that rather-obvious-in-hindsight solution. many thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Addbot and the orphan tag
This came to my attention when, User:Addbot (operated by User:Addshore) began edit-warring on some pages on my watchlist, and I admit I'm not too clued up on the bot process. I gotta say though, this ain't the first time I've come across a bot using automated tools to place big fat ugly tags on top of articles (another one a few months ago was tagging articles disapproving of Latin abbreviations). The approval given for this purpose is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_16, where the concerns of KP_Botany are -- seemingly -- contemptfully dismissed.
Myself, User:DGG, and others have asked the owner to stop doing it, but, typical of the feedback, in a recent thread User:Anomie instructed us to "take it to WP:VPR or WP:RFC and see if consensus exists to change the orphan tagging guidelines". User:Anomie I noticed was one of the users so contemptful of KPBotany's concerns on the approval page.
The whole operation of the bot owner's noticeboard doesn't come across as very clued. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if this even needs to go to an RfC. Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage -- of which User:Addshore is a card carrying member -- is not proof of community approval. Normal users like myself should not have to go begging to RfCs to get bot-owners to stop doing something the community never approved of in the first place. Is there a reason why, if it starts doing this again, I can't just warn the bot to stop or block it? Or is there actually more community support for its activities than meets the eye? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since you ask, I've been worried that this bot may have the opposite of its intended effect. The template might be driving away readers who would otherwise become interested and add more material on related subjects. Was any concept testing done before this was expanded to a large scale? DurovaCharge! 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see value in a bot doing this task. If a human adds the tag, fine, but I don't think adding the banner en masse at the top of every orphan is going to prompt many random reader to create links from other articles. Dedicated editors who wish to do so can run a query easily enough without the tag being added. –xeno (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, new users proud of their first new articles don't want their nice new articles slapped with a big aggressive tag that serves little purpose. Regarding your question, I'll leave Addshore to answer that one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem mentioned above can be address by only tagging articles which are not not patrolled. Meaning anything that is patrolled or for an article that has existed for over 30 days. As I have said also I am happy to take the bot and its task to RFC but I am currently lacking time to do so. In the mean time I will keep the bot disabled as it would be due to changes and bugs in the lists and tool server. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're not gonna use the bot for this tag until an an RfC approves, then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that would make sense. But if people wait for me to start ad RFC that could be months :P ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 07:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're not gonna use the bot for this tag until an an RfC approves, then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Redundant XfD...?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianne Silber - Is it invalid to include an image in an AfD, when the image only exists to illustrate that article? Do I really have to do an AfD to say that someone isn't notable, then a separate FfD of their now-unused picture? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the image is getting moved to commons where it might be used ... eventually ... somewhere ... =) –xeno (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
AIV...
...has been getting pounded, and it doesn't look like many admins are watching it. I have to go to class now, and I don't want it to get backed up again. Earlier, there were literally 20 extant reports. Can a few admins keep an eye on it? J.delanoygabsadds 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Down to two reports at present - looks like people have had their coffee/tea/dinner/etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Systematic removal of mentions of Taiwan
Just a heads-up, a bunch of anonIPs seem to be on a mission to removal any mention of Taiwan from many associated articles. Replacing it with China(ROC) and removing mention of Taiwan as a synonym in those places, removing navigational aids and content explaining why China can have two meanings and how the term "Taiwan" relates to this naming confusion, removing factual content that seems to go against some viewpoint, bolding random occurrences of ROC in articles, insertion of the ROC flag icon in templates that specifically instruct not to use it, etc. I've handed out warnings, reverted many pages, been accused of POV-pushing, addition of info that nobody needs, etc--whatever, comes with the mop:) Finally gave up with
- 59.105.23.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
and blocked him. Anyone feel free to unblock if I went over the top on one particular instance, but would also appreciate some other eyes on his favorite pages. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like it's one user with a dynamic IP address. Several they seem to have used recently:
- 59.104.18.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.104.18.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.104.18.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.104.18.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.104.18.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (some content edits, here)
- 59.105.23.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.105.23.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- For reference. 59.104.16.0/22 accounts for most, but not all of, these edits. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Spotted a similar thing:
- 220.249.76.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [16]
- --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Spotted a similar thing:
Background information for others: "Republic of China" is the official name of the country, not Taiwan. Sometimes they use "Republic of China on Taiwan" to avoid confusion. Wikipedia must be very careful in using neutral terminology. I am not saying what term Wikipedia should use, only that we should not inadvertently create POV. Wikipedia should never kowtow to mainland China and use the terminology demanded by the People's Republic of China. After all, this English Wikipedia, not PRC-Wikipedia. (signed with IP to show that I am not those 59xxx people. This information is only provided because some people in Wikipedia are unaware of the ROC and Taiwan name debate. 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Taiwan is the most common name in English. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is because of heavy pressure from the People's Republic of China over the past 40 years. So much so that many kowtow to the mainland government without even knowing it. The NPOV way would probably be to let Wikipedia readers know that there is an international dispute over the name. That's why these 59xxx people are not doing the right thing by removing navigational aids. But neither are the people who insist on using the communist mainland's terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are these anons located in the mainland? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- At least the one I've looked at is in Taipei, not on the mainland - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I recognize this POV. It's from the Chinese government that was overthrown by Mao. They refugiated in Taiwan and they say that they are the legitimate government of all China, and that the CCPP is just a bunch of usurpers with no legitimacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Mao government "say(s) that they are the legitimate government of all China (and Taiwan) and that the KMT is just a bunch of userpers with no legitimacy" (same quote as Enric Naval writes except reversed). If we listen to Enric Naval, we kowtow to the People's Republic of China. If we listen to the 59xxx IP's, we kowtow to the Republic of China. In Wikipedia, we should kowtow to neither side. That is true NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Taiwan is still the most common name in English. So, the articles should use it so readers can recognize what the articles are talking about it. Wikipedia is not the place for resolving old injustices. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Mao government "say(s) that they are the legitimate government of all China (and Taiwan) and that the KMT is just a bunch of userpers with no legitimacy" (same quote as Enric Naval writes except reversed). If we listen to Enric Naval, we kowtow to the People's Republic of China. If we listen to the 59xxx IP's, we kowtow to the Republic of China. In Wikipedia, we should kowtow to neither side. That is true NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I recognize this POV. It's from the Chinese government that was overthrown by Mao. They refugiated in Taiwan and they say that they are the legitimate government of all China, and that the CCPP is just a bunch of usurpers with no legitimacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- At least the one I've looked at is in Taipei, not on the mainland - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are these anons located in the mainland? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is because of heavy pressure from the People's Republic of China over the past 40 years. So much so that many kowtow to the mainland government without even knowing it. The NPOV way would probably be to let Wikipedia readers know that there is an international dispute over the name. That's why these 59xxx people are not doing the right thing by removing navigational aids. But neither are the people who insist on using the communist mainland's terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.34.171 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure which notice board to put this on. The article in question has been written by user GlobalAir; that editor just removed my maintenance tags for COI and possible advertising. I'm stepping back from the article to avoid a tag-revert war. A More Perfect Onion (talk) (I forgot to sign this the first time through)
- Article speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11, User:GlobalAir blocked per user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
After resolution:
The User has an unblock request on their Talk page. They are also claiming their IP is blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
GoSentWin
User:GoSentWin talk • contribs
Editor made an incivil post to my user talk
Editor made another invicil post to my user talk
Editor blanked an article Kimmie Weeks
Editor created an advertisement article, with spam in it, and restored it.
I hesitate to report this editor because I am offended by what I perceive as personal attacks in the posts on my user page... I most certainly have damaged no one's reputation, and see an accusation that I have as a threat. I also fear I have been taken in by a hoax.sinneed (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Article is a clear hoax, as I can't find anything about her through Google. If editor continues t repost article, might be best to report them to AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I cannot nominate User talk:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Threeskin for deletion because the title blacklist is stopping me from doing so. I am requesting that an administrator create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Threeskin for me. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done Happy‑melon 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I will just delete it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please close the deletion discussion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I will just delete it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
after ec, clarifying to :::::Done under G8; talk page of a deleted page. Total screw up in teh drop down but I'm not going to restore and re-delete. but now it appears I'm going to restore and close. :-P KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- All better now, sorry about that. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Chasewang and COI
Per his own declaration, Chasewang (talk · contribs) is the "official publicity representative" of the website Crunchyroll.[17] For some background. He created the Crunchyroll article. That article was originally CSDed and deleted three times on August 26, 2008, with him being the creator of at least two of those instances. At the time he was warned about using Wikipedia for advertising. In December 08, he returned and recreated it. It has been allowed to stay due to its having gained some notability in that time for going from a fansub haven to a semi-legitimate company. He then went mostly quiet, except for doing promo-type edits to that article. He has returned this month, however, and appears to be on a heavy promotional spree, creating two new articles for the site Crunchyroll Online Catalog and Crunchyroll Partners and going through a ton of articles to add multiple links to the three articles and a sentence about the company to them, either noting they are a "partner" (for companies), or that the series can be watched there (for anime). I have tagged the two new articles for CSD, reverted his promotional blurb adding, and given him a fuller COI warning. However, I figured it might be good to point some admins his way to see if any further action is needed and to have more eyes on things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
During the times that nothing was happening, I was researching on how to create a page that WOULD NOT be seen as promotional. If you look at this current version, it is purely information that has supported documents from Variety, Anime News Network, Publishers Weekly, etc. The contents of the Crunchyroll Online Catalog and Crunchyroll Partners are just lists that is PURE information and added information. There is nothing PROMOTIONAL about any 3 pages. They all conduct themselves within the rules of Wikipedia. None of the connections between any of the pages has stated for individuals to "GO TO CRUNCHYROLL TO WATCH THE SHOWS". It is purely informational and all links were supported by articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasewang (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Go read WP:N and WP:COI, yet again. This is not an appropriate page at all. You created it purely to make it seem like Crunchyroll's list of partners is so notable, it needs its own article, when obviously they are not. Being upfront and honest about your roll is good, but that doesn't mean you are being neutral. Obviously, you are not if you think creating these pages is in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, continue to refuse to accept corrections on your edits, and continue attempting to flood articles with links back to "your" articles purely to promote the service (you tacking on a reference does not change that nor does your not just saying "hey, go to Crunchyroll.") It is still self-promotion and a clear conflict of interest. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a backlog that could use some administrative assistance at WP:SPI. Please do not be put off by the new format / procedures as it is pretty much all the same. The only difference is, once you have finished a case and are ready to close you add {{SPIclose}} to the bottom. Other than that, non-checkuser related cases work just like the old SSP used to. Thanks in advance, Tiptoety talk 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Some kind ASCII images and more...
I'd like to have someone have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matty267. I guess there will be more of those in the near future, if not yet happened. If we're lucky it's a static IP or at least a small range. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a G@@per post-JarlaxleArtemis, trying to impersonate him. RBI. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm an admin on Commons, but with no rights here. A picture recently moved from here to Commons references File:PIA03498.jpg (local file on en:WP) as its source, but there's not file there anymore (blacklisted filename). Was there a file here once? Has it been moved? Where is it now? Or has it been deleted? Why? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that an image by that name has ever existed here. There's nothing special about the title being blacklisted -- images without enough letters in the name simply can't be uploaded. --Carnildo (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete some revisions
I wanna have some revisions deleted that reveal an editor's name by accident. Where do I go? Or if s.o. wants to help me directly... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OVERSIGHT. Daniel (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
copyright violation
This file copied from perspolis-club.ir that have copyright (not GFDL) please delete this file thanksAmir (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PUI is that way. — neuro(talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted it. Neuro, I understand and sympathize with the desire to keep this noticeboard uncluttered, but in a situation in which someone obviously not familiar with Wikipedia is bringing up a serious problem, the proper thing to do is to deal with it (for example, to start a PUI discussion yourself), rather than such a brief statement, which would be incomprehensible to someone who didn't understand our processes and procedures. Chick Bowen 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting edits on a biography
Hiya all, I was wondering if I could get some (impartial) eyes onto the content of Andrew Bolt over the next 12 hours or so, to try and sort out some apparent BLP and NPOV issues with this biography.
If anyone experienced with our BLP and NPOV policies could devote even five-to-ten minutes to make a start on pruning the article as required, hopefully it'll all add up and the article will get fixed. Given the subject's knowledge of this issue, and the field he works in, I feel this is sufficiently important to ask for assistance with here.
So, yeah, any help is much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting permission to view deleted material
Hi, I am a long time editor who has recently returned from retirement. I was wondering if there is anyway I can apply for the privilage to view deleted articles. Is this privilage restricted to admins or is there some way I can gain access to it? Thanks :) Valoem talk 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is restricted to admins only. Please visit WP:RFA if you are interested in becoming an admin. //roux 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Alternatively, you might consider contacting an admin regarding a specific article you would like to view. Rklawton (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting review of unblock request
- Jakezing (talk · contribs)
- Jakezing has been blocked since January 1, 2009. I have contacted User talk:JzG (aka Guy), who issued the block, but he has not responded, and has not edited at Wikipedia since February 27. Since he does not appear to be active at this time, I thought that before I unblocked, I should bring this to the community to discuss. Jakezing was blocked indef for gross incivility, and his first several unblock requests continued the pattern. However, two months seems to have convinced him that continued incivility is an unwise course of action, as his latest unblock request is perfectly civil, and he has pledged to mend his ways. I propose we unblock him based on these conditions:
- That he is on 1RR parole (given that he has had prior problems with edit warring); and he is not to revert an article more than once for any reason.
- That he is on strict civility parole, even if he feels provoked. He is to remain civil and cordial at all times, even in the face of incivility by others. He may be reblocked indefinately should he violate this, and it is the opinion of the blocking administrator, not his own, as to what sorts of conduct is to be considered incivil. He must try to see his actions through the eyes of others, and act in a way that is above reproach.
If he will agree to these terms (and if other admins think that it is wise to unblock him) I will go ahead and issue the unblock. What do you all think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think indef blocks for non-cranks/non-POV pushers with a demonstrable history of constructive edits is excessive. I think the unblocking admin should also volunteer to serve as this editor's mentor for a few months. Rklawton (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but support giving one more chance, and one only. Concur with Rklawton on having Guy as the mentor, as Guy has little time for any game-playing. //roux 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tentatively support. I hope that this user can resist any future provocation - or else turn to an admin - rather than retaliate. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meh. The attitude shown makes me think a relapse will occur rather quickly, but if Guy's willing to mentor, then why not, as long as strict and specific parameters regarding behaviour are laid out beforehand. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Recall initiated against MBisanz
Brrryce (talk · contribs) has instigated an administrator recall request against MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alleging that his deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) constituted an abuse of his admin tools. I have been asked to clerk this process, and am posting this notice here pursuant to MBisanz's recall policy. This policy stipulates that if five administrators meeting specified criteria endorse the recall request within 48 hours, MBisanz will either resign adminship or initiate a reconfirmation RFA. As I am posting this notice at a number of locations, I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Legitimate pagemove being blocked by title blacklist
I'm trying to move the disambiguation page Zombie Powder to Zombie powder since it's not disambiguating proper names, but am being blocked by the title blacklist with the message "This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." However, a cursory glance through the actual blacklist isn't showing any reason for the move to be blocked (but then, I don't know much about regexs...). Any help? 「ダイノガイ千?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- moved, FWIW, no idea why it was blocked. - Nunh-huh 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm having the same problem with moving Korolyov cross to Korolyov Cross, as it is a proper noun. --GW… 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't feel I can move this, as I am not convinced that "Korolyov cross" is wrong. (Greek cross, Latin cross, Celtic cross, Eastern cross, Geneva cross, Lorraine cross, Maltese cross, St. Andrew's cross, Saint Anthony's cross, etc. are all so capitalized in Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary - all types of crosses. The only crosses that it capitalizes are those of awards (Victoria Cross), constellations (Northern Cross), or organizations (Red Cross). - Nunh-huh 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Another: Absorption Hardening (completely legitimate but miscapitalized nuclear-engineering term) cannot be moved to Absorption hardening. Hqb (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- also done. - Nunh-huh 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ask not what you can do for Wikipedia. Ask what it can keep you from doing. (At least it's not blocking you ) --NE2 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only way I'll ever approve the abuse filter is if NawlinWiki is forbidden to edit it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is being caused by one of two edits performed by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist... I'll notify him of this discussion in a second. 「ダイノガイ千?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted self, lemme try and figure out what I did wrong. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Loreto college mullingar casing move blacklist
I was trying to move this to the correctly cased title but got a warning re:blacklist for move vandalism. The school seems to exist though. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Admins needed at WP:AIV
Backlogs getting created. Enigmamsg 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Edward Crean
This title has been blocked due to wikipedia identifying characters commonly used in vandalism. I am not sure what these are. However, this is the name of a former rugby union international who played for the British Lions touring side in the early twentieth century. Would it be possible for me to create this page?Kwib (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, the page I am trying to move to this pagespace is User:Kwib/Edward CreanKwib (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. There seems to be something very odd going on with the move function. Perhaps someone just added some pecular RegEx to the file. I think I'll drop a note at the Village Pump. - Nunh-huh 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Rename of Template blocked.
I've just been blocked trying to rename a template:
- This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
We had found that there were two templates serving similar purpose:
The former had the poorer content and page-positioning, but a better name. The latter had better content (want to keep) and positioning (keep) but a poorer name.
Aim:
- End up with a single template, good in both name and content.
Summary of process:
- merge/rename was discussed at Template talk:Christian music with cross-reference from other template and on a a relevant project's talk page;
- ensure that all articles involving either template (many already had both) included the latter (with its better content but poorer name) and had the former removed;
- rename latter to former.
On attempting the last step the 'move page' was blocked as described. Any ideas? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- If one of the templates is going to be unused, just copy the content to the one that is to be used and redirect the one to the other. –xeno (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Move performed. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. (And using move has nicely preserved edit-history of the good material, which is why I had been attempting a move rather than copy. Appreciated!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Help with move
I would help to move Synthetic options position to Synthetic underlying position (see talk page for discussion). A separate article Synthetic options position should later be created for this somewhat different subject. The move is blocked now by the system for some reason? Regards Ulner (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Move performed. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- For future reference, questions like this are better suited for WP:Requested moves. hmwithτ 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK needs updating
To any active admins, the T:DYK is two hours overdue, and needs updating. Instructions are in a comments field below. Thanks! ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Notification of 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:
MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments to be erased and account deleted
I've laid comments in various talk pages such as the Australoid talk page. I wanted to know how I can delete my comments because I don't want my comments on any of the talk pages on any site anymore. I also wanted to point out that before I had an account name "bcr" and I wanted to get permission to remove the comments I made on talk pages for the Australoid article, the hutu article, the paul kagame article, the tutsi article, the robert chestagu article, and the rush limbaugh article. I also wanted to know how I can have my account deleted. I don't want to have an account on wikipedia anymore. bcr was just a name that I had and I just want to remove those comments. But the current account I have under the name "cobenobo" is what I want deleted.Cobenobo (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)