Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive204

Dan Fefferman article

Suggesting administrators pay attention to Dan Fefferman. It is repeatedly filled with bogus sources. It is likely that followers of a church will gang up to protect this "article". --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about the citations, see Talk:Dan_Fefferman#Bogus_sources_removed. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:Access to sources. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Castlevania

User:Purunyuu and an IP user (IP address is dynamic but WHOIS confirms they are from the same location, one being 92.14.226.94 and the other being 92.13.35.238) have been edit-warring recently on the Castlevania article about whether or not this Wiki-site for Castlevania, called "Chapel of Resonance" should be included in the article (odd considering there is already a Castlevania Wikia in existence). I've just warned both users about edit warring, but should I take the step of reporting them to 3RR? Both users have more than overstepped the boundaries of 3RR but have not been properly warned until now, would they still need to be reported? Also, can an admin give an opinion on whether or not that Chapel of Resonance wiki site can be placed on the page so we can end this edit war once and for all? TheLetterM (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I added a link to the Castlevania wiki hosted by Chapel of Resonance is because there were several complains about the poor quality of the orginal wiki. The site staff of the Chapel of Resonance decided create an alternate one (I'm it's overseer) and I wanted to make people aware of it's existence by adding a link in the article about Castlevania. Apparently, somebody said that it was a link to a fansite and not worth mentioning. I said to him that the orginal Castlevania wiki was also a fanbase-driven project and because the article provided a link to it, I also have to right to provide a link to ours. Admittedly I expressed that poorly to the other contributor(or he was just being ignorant) and in an impolite manner which resulted in the "edit-warring".

Purunyuu(talk) 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC

Administrative abuse by Angr in deletion review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the complaints department. No effort was made to seek an explanation from the admin on his talk page. The deletion discussion has been reopened, so there is nothing left for admins to do here. In the future, if any Wikipedia user, admin or not, does something one does not understand, one should seek an individual discussion with the user using his/her talk page. --Jayron32 03:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I'd like to complain about User:Angr.

He clearly has abused his administrative priviledges in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest by:

• closing a contentious AFD early
• by improperly counting the !votes and not weighing them against policy (it's not a vote, it's supposed to be about whose argument is best in accord with policy)
• by declaring the result as a keep, when there was clearly no consensus at all (at best, and in reality, it's a delete)

The article is going to go through DRV anyway, but frankly I'd like him desysoped as well, his actions are harmful to the Wikipedia, and he is acting extremely improperly.

I'm neither upset, nor am I exaggerating- this kind of thing is not on at any level, and I expect him to be made an example of. Administrators do not get to make policy by the backdoor.- Wolfkeeper 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any abuse here. It was only closed about 10 hours early... –xeno^talk 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations which are not clear either way should never be closed early, especially without an explanation. Majorly talk 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So revert the closure and let it run. Calling for a desysop seems a little over-the-top. I see Angr was afforded a mere 18 minutes from the time someone notified him about the relatively new extension to 7 days and this thread. –xeno^talk 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's worse than that. He clearly hasn't even read the comments and is acting on his own. That massively calls into question his judgement and trustworthiness as an admin; and means that he is using his admin priviledges to change the result.- Wolfkeeper 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wolfkeeper, If there's "clearly no consensus at all", isn't the net effect a keep anyway? If I stretch credulity to the breaking point, I still don't see a major breach of policy, certainly nothing that will ever, ever result in a desysop; requesting one isn't going to achieve anything. I do wish people wouldn't close AFD's even a few minutes early, though, as it almost always causes more problems than the closer thinks they're solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because he's changed the result of the review; admins are not supposed to be biased, and he clearly is.- Wolfkeeper 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Net 5 for keep so "no consensus" would still result in the article sticking around. –xeno^talk 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, it's NOT a vote.- Wolfkeeper 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would have been annoying, and I would still have DRV'd. But I wouldn't be calling for his bit. But the conjunction of 3 different problems in a situation where he would not be expected to be unbiased; that's quite different.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Any way you cut it, he's acting on his own here.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's been a history of similar closures (e.g. Docu), calling for a desysop over this is a bit drama queenish, IMO. Let's get it reopened for the remaining ~10 hours, and perhaps a polite reminder that AfD closures that aren't obvious snowballs should be accompanied by an explanation of the closing rationale. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late. He needs to justify it, and explain why it was closed early- good luck with that.- Wolfkeeper 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-opened it for the remainder of the original time period. Asking for desysopping or any sanctions of any kind here is laughable - and it's clear who here lives for teh Wiki drama. Tan | 39 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear to me what Angr did here; and that falls far short of what an admin should be.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with an admin's actions, the first step is to discuss it with the admin, which you haven't done. Mr.Z-man 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Italian comune

This template contains a call for coat or arms/shields for Italian communities. The problem is the template indiscriminately looks for such images when none is provided as a parameter to the template. This results in sometimes non-free imagery being displayed in templates. This is a violation of WP:NFCC #9, which prohibits such use. Case example: File:Sanremo-Stemma.png. I have modified Template:Infobox Italian comune/doc, but can not modify Template:Infobox Italian comune because it is protected. This problem needs to be fixed. Only an administrator can fix it. Help please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Would you please replace user:btilm/signature with the following text? Thanks.  Btilm  22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Just curious: why couldn't you edit that page yourself? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was suppose to be protected, but someone unprotected it.  Btilm  01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I commented out the sig text so that AN wouldn't scroll sideways. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

community ban proposal

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)

This dude is probably the worst of the Armenian nationalists. A former cross-wiki vandal (myself and Lar did a big investigation on this a while back) who cleaned up his act a bit, he's been in and out of WP:ARBAA2 sanctions more times than I care to count, due to incessant incivility, flaming, revert-warring, the lot. I came back from wikibreak to find him meatpuppeting for Ararat arev (talk · contribs): in fact, I think my first admin action of recent times was to stick him back on 1rr again. However, this recent effort in out-of-the-blue flaming shows pretty clear his total lack of anything resembling rationality. At this point I question whether we'd be better off keeping him around. Time to ban and move on, I think. Moreschi (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

tangent

I've left him an {{ANI-notice}}, without prejudice to the merits of this complaint. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Congrats. You pointed him to the wrong noticeboard, while I had already linked him directly to this discussion. Moreschi (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Congrats. Someone makes a good faith mistake, and you respond with a ringing example of WP:DICK. Just what us conscientious admins really appreciate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Fair comment, though. Some of us tend to fade a tad after 14 hours online here, and a one-character typo is the least to be expected. At least I didn't block Jimbo or delete the Main page, although I don't rule out that happening sometime.</sarc> Rodhullandemu 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why hasn't he been topic-banned under discretionary sanctions at ARBAA2 first? That is, strictly no edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia should be related to the area of conflict, broadly construed. Without some insight (or evidence) into how he edits outside the area, or how well he complies with that particular sanction, I'm not persuaded to endorse an outright ban at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose. That would in effect be equivalent to a siteban, as he doesn't edit outside the area of conflict. And he would almost certainly sock to evade it, as he would sock to evade a siteban. The two are more or less the same proposal. Moreschi (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • He may or may not sock (I'm not familiar with him), but if you allow him something to do legitimately (outside the topic area), it's got to be less likely - especially if the ban is lengthy, but not permanent. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Shrug. Frankly, I don't think this kind of extreme nationalist mentality is interested in doing anything else, and given the history of cross-wiki vandalism, reincarnation we can safely assume to be an inevitability. Moreschi (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • Moreschi, are you not advocating banning an editor for saying a far less offensive thing that your "extreme nationalist mentality" comment. Or can I, in future, get a "get out of jail free" card if ever I want to discuss your own "mentality" or "extremism" or "nationalism" or refer to you as a "dude"? Meowy 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My nick is derived from General Andranik Ozanian's name, who used to say: "I'm not a nationalist, I know only one nation, the nation of oppressed people"! I'm not a nationalist and never was! I'm rather a leftist. Among my closest friends there are Vietnamese and Sri Lankan people, I respect British, American, Serbian and other cultures, many of my edit's are dedicated to Russian literature and art, to famous French people. And if even I am a nationalist, is it something to ban? We have thousands of users, who are members of nationalsits parties, noone is going to ban them and their fully legal ideology. Related to Moreschi, he is aloud during the last days for his pro-Azerbaijani actions ANI. And I have no relations with user Ararat Arev (as I know he is from US, while I never where there), I just reverted an edit in one article that I believed and believe was justified historical (ANCIENT!) information. If Ararat Arev was banned by the same Moreschi, I'll not be surprized if he is very civil person who was banned during a content dispute. Moreschi is not neutral and used to ban Armenian users (two years ago I also was banned by him with a false justification, then reblocked)! Andranikpasha (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. My dear friend, one quick look at the log of WP:ARBAA2 shows the quantity of Azeris I have banned, blocked, or otherwise restricted. You're all one to me, I'm afraid. Your claims of bias don't stack up any more than your claims surrounding the validity of Ararat arev's lunacy. Nationalist ideology is of course itself quite harmless, but we do have a little policy called WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, which means that you boys don't get to endlessly refight the Nagorno-Karabakh war. You, I'm afraid, are probably one the worst offenders in this regard. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I dont think you even believe in your words!) You were engaged in blocks of most active Armenian users, while you never blocked any real Azerbaijani user, all the active ones are here! I can mention Grandmaster, who is working actively with you, its a fact. And for sure you know that very few my edits are related to Nagorno-Karabakh War or it's area, I'm rather interested in Armenian ancient history and Genocide topic. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably help if there were more direct evidence of the conduct requiring sanction. While the user page edit and comments above do seem to have violated AGF regularly, I'm not sure that is sufficient as per the arbitration. Could you provide some links to some recent problematic edits? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my name is mentioned here, I would like to note that I'm not "working with Moreschi". I work with all admins and checkusers who are active in arbitration covered AA topics. Andranikpasha seems to be very unhappy that Hetoum I (talk · contribs) got caught with yet another sock, and his ban was extended to 1 year (which, btw, he evaded again, and further action is necessary). Please see this report here: [1] And this is my post at Moreschi's talk that made Andranikpasha so unhappy: [2] When this new sock popped up, I informed Moreschi, after asking Versageek for CU, which later confirmed that the account was a sock: [3] The sock account was blocked by another admin, not Moreschi, but Moreschi became the target of personal attacks for no reason. Attacking other editors for no reason, which looks like an attempt to cover up socking by another person, is a rude violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and in my opinion requires the attention of the community. Grandmaster 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How 'neutral' Moreschi is, was discussed by other admins few days ago [4] and your support here once again shows how neutral is he in AA2. All the socks must be banned, we have checkusers for that, it's what I wrote in Moreschi's talk. I never made any personal attacks there (maybe except of "Moreschi for Azerbaijan" editsum, while you can see much more worse opinions at ANI). So I see no any personal attack against anyone of you (I just dislike Moreschi's usage of admin privilegies) and my post was according to WP:SOCK ("If you believe someone is using sock puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations", not in a 'very neutral' admin's talk). And if you read Moreschi's opening post here, you can see some personal attacks against me. And he write's it in an unrespectful style, as if I were his close friend or someone he is familiar with ("This dude is probably the worst of the Armenian nationalists", "a former cross-wiki vandal"?!!!). If I start to answer to his unjustified accusations in a same style, for sure a will be blocked at once. Andranikpasha (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending Moreschi. I only post here because you mention my name here, and make bad faith assumptions about me. First, I asked a checkuser before informing Moreschi. CU takes time, in the meantime the sockpuppet can continue the disruption. That's why I asked an admin familiar with the topic area to have a look as well. Another admin made his judgment and blocked the suspicious account, which CU later confirmed to be a sock of the banned user. As for you, to me it looks very strange that you were objecting to sockpuppetry investigation, and did it in such an inflammatory manner. Grandmaster 11:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the ongoing issues involving a certain Eastern European mailing list (whose emails make for illuminating reading, btw) I think you should all be very cautious about engaging in these sort of ban discussions. I'm not aware that an editor's political persuasions are a matter for bans. Nor am I aware that an administrator's fit of pique about what someone has put on their user page is a matter for a ban. There was nothing particularly offensive about that talk page post, and it is only stating what many are wondering about many administrator decisions in the light of that mailing list disclosure and other similar past disclosures, as well as inconsistancies amongst administrator decisions. I don't personally believe that Moreschi is a member of some anti-Armenian cabal, or has been "groomed" by a Turkish/Azeri equivalent of the aformentioned mailing list cabal to get editors banned. The only big issue I've ever had against him has been about a mistake he made about another editor and his reluctance to admit to making that mistake and rectifying it. Real disruption to an article should be the ONLY reason for banning editors. Banning editors for breaking arbitrary rules or restrictions that apply to only certain editors or to only certain topics and which (as in AA2) are designed to be so restrictive that in practice are always broken are just the things that both encourage cabal-paranoia and a disrespect for administrators. What false information has Andranikpasha added to articles? What legitimate information has he deleted? As John Carter asked, "where are some links to some recent problematic edits?". If there are extensive examples of that sort of activity, then a topic ban is appropriate, maybe even a community ban. If there is not, then even a topic ban is not appropriate. Meowy 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also very disturbed by the way that Moreschi has warned Andranikpasha about this discussion. Look: [5], he has not placed the warning in a new section, but posted it right underneath a posting by another administrator who was informing Andranikpasha about a merge article proposal. Andranikpasha voted against that proposal. Moreschi has indented his posting underneath the merge proposal posting, indicating that he is making a connection between that earlier posting. What is he implying by that? That this community ban proposal is a direct result of Andranikpasha opposing an administrator's proposal? Meowy 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban redux

• Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#Proposed topic ban, but was archived without any obvious consensus or closing statement.
• 173.79.229.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Disruption by the editor previously discussed is still ongoing with a new IP. Twice now the editor has turned up, reverted to their highly fringe version (or a slightly different but still highly fringe version) three times, then disappeared before a 3RR block was issued.

This has now been going on for over two years. The editor concerned doesn't listen, doesn't understand policy, shows no interest in anything except pushing their fringe views by the selective inclusion of "facts" which are generally nothing more than observations on primary sources designed to make the subject of the article look as guilty as possible. If William Greer was still alive this editor would have been blocked long ago, I don't see why the dead don't deserve some level of protection also. I still propose to topic ban this editor from all articles, broadly construed, relating to the assassination of JFK. Thoughts? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No objection to a topic ban, which would be well-deserved. But as a practical matter, six months of semi-protection of William Greer would probably cure the problem. This user keeps returning with different IPs, over a period of months, to continue the inappropriate editing that was previously reported in the September WP:AN thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While I've no objection to semi-protection as a means of enforcing a ban, I feel that we really could do with getting this nailed down once and for all. What happens if the editor gets an account and auto-confirms it? We'll just be back here again. I'd hope after all this the editor concerned isn't welcome to edit the topic area, and a ban would allow involved admin Gamaliel (talk · contribs) to use tools to enforce the ban as required, instead of having his hands largely tied. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributor copyright infringement

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations is open for (serious) business. This process aims to investigate and cleanup instances of copyright infringement by the same user.

To that effect, I have opened up two CCIs today:

|- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Vlad9" | Vlad9 | data-cci-open="14560" | 12 November 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Matthew06 87" | Matthew06 87 | data-cci-open="14560" | 12 November 2009 |

These CCIs are recycled from the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys:

|- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="GrahamBould" | GrahamBould | data-cci-open="14317" | 14 March 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Mgreason" | Mgreason | data-cci-open="14319" | 16 March 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Martim33" | Martim33 | data-cci-open="14394" | 30 May 2009 | 12 articles left to check |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Rcpaterson" | Rcpaterson | data-cci-open="14432" | 7 July 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Paknur" | Paknur | data-cci-open="14450" | 25 July 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Singingdaisies" | Singingdaisies | data-cci-open="14512" | 25 September 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Ivankinsman" | Ivankinsman | data-cci-open="14537" | 20 October 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Jeffman52001" | Jeffman52001 | data-cci-open="14544" | 27 October 2009 | |- ! scope="row" data-cci-name="Flaming Ferrari" | Flaming Ferrari | data-cci-open="14549" | 1 November 2009 |

Have fun. MER-C 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone add CCI to {{Noticeboard links}}. Thanks. MER-C 10:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Already there. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's commented out... MER-C 10:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, only half a brain today. Is that better? ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) MER-C 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, are we sure that we really need it there? There might be advantages to making Wikipedia:Copyright problems the portal for those issues, and at the top of that page clearly directing people to WP:CCI for widescale infringement. For one thing, the noticeboard list is long enough already, and for another, this way people unfamiliar with it are faced with a choice of whether it's "widescale" (a choice which can be explained at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but not in the noticeboards navbox). Those in the know can move things from Wikipedia:Copyright problems to WP:CCI - and they're probably not going to be using the navbox links. Let's think about the audience for this navbox. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For that matter (and MER-C, who has done so much brilliant work on this, is going to hate me for saying this) could the two be merged into a single copyright investigation and clean-up board? ➜❝Redvers❞ 11:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum I

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) has been evading the arbitration sanctions for years, edit warring across multiple articles in an arbitration covered area. He was engaged in vandalism and racial slurs as well. Detailed information is available here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. A couple if days ago he evaded his 6 months ban, using a sock account. It was reported here: [6], and his ban was reset to 1 year. Hetoum evaded this ban too, this time using the account of Fazeri (talk · contribs). The CU confirmed that Fazeri was yet another sock of Hetoum. [7] The admin who was handling a request at WP:AE advised that the indefinite bans should be discussed here, so I suggest that the community considers the indefinite ban for Hetoum, since we've been wasting too much time to deal with his disruption, and he is unlikely to respect the arbitration enforcement decisions. Grandmaster 06:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum is on indefinite ban now, and has another sock, Plainsriver (talk · contribs). Can we place his favorite articles Khanate of Erevan and Khanate of Nakhichevan on permanent semi-protection, to stop his edit warring? Grandmaster 06:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing of WP:POINT AfD

This AfD has been opened by an editor who wanted to make a point. Please could an administrator have a look at it and decide if it can be closed per WP:SNOW? Laurent (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The AFD is now closed. Laurent (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Naitsirks and his "images"

Naitsirks (talk · contribs) has been consistent on uploading copyrighted images. He was warned several times by doing so, but he still ignore those warnings and continue to upload images. It is very obvious that these images were copyrighted, because of the website name (and the name of the TV network owning the image copyrights) intact on the images.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours--and I left an additional "one more slip-up and it's indef" warning. Blueboy96 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language)

Resolved

 – AfD has been closed as keep

I don't know if anyone is watching this or planning to be the closer, but I'm just wondering if we should look into the number of IPs/SPAs commenting at this debate. It's hard to tell whether they're socks (which would make the keep/delete count a lot closer) or whether they're just new people who saw the AfD tag and wanted to comment (which would in of itself be a good keep argument, suggesting that a lot of people are looking up this page). Of course, I'm aware of the problems with using checkuser without good evidence, so maybe there's nothing that can be done other than exercising a lot of judgment; just thought I'd ask. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The sheer number of new accounts and IP's commenting makes it look to me like something shady is going on...However I can say for certain that the IP users are probably not the same, as they geolocate from all over Europe and North America. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the accounts are unquestionably  Unrelated. I also see no evidence that anyone double-voted while logged out. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the debate mentioned on at least one active website (slashdot) that likely pushed people here Jamesofur (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The conversations been getting a little heated. Experienced editors/admins with some free time are encouraged to try and calm it down a bit. We can have the constructive discussion on deletion without personal attacks.

I left two level 1 equivalent warnings for a couple of comments, more gentle on-thread pushback may also be useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This same article was given an apparently bad-faith AfD nom above, which was speedy closed as violating WP:POINT. Shouldn't this AfD be closed thus as well? GJC 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go (programming language) is not the same as Go! (programming language). The naming issue is part of what has made both AfDs a font of lameness. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wenceslas Hollar

Hello, I am nearly sure that contemporary name for artist Wenceslas Hollar is not correct, it would be better on Wenceslaus Hollar (there is no evidence for option without U). Can You delete redirect and move the article? --marv1N (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for explaining the situation clearly. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• We have a page for this, Wikipedia:Requested moves, and procedures, both of which were ignored by Nyttend when he did the move. This page should not be used to shortcut procedures. I happen to think the new name is more correct, and know where to look for the right sources, but Marvin's "there is no evidence for option without U" is nonsense, as this spelling is also very common. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement that moves must be approved at talk or at WP:RM. If you believe that it shouldn't have been done, and if you believe that one or the other of these is needed, feel free to follow one of those procedures. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is - see WP:MOVE. The page has been moved on more than one occasion before, and clearly meets two of the conditions there for a listing at WP:RM:

• if you believe the move might be controversial
• if you are unsure about the best page name

Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't wanted to make so many complication and also I am sorry about saying simplified revision of situation (it grew up from article discussion, where was Wenceslaus sugested as the best form but moved on Wenceslas). By the way is spelling without U realy ″very common″ (on Google I see this spellin mostly in cases connected with Wikipedia)? --marv1N (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1,110 on GScholar for "Wenceslas Hollar". Wenceslas is the normal spelling in English, as in Wenceslas Square and Good King Wenceslas. The talk page discussion was from 2006/7. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At the end of discussion: I see. Next time I will try to choose better place and words for my reqiuerements. Year 2006 was for me also suprising ;-); it doesn't matter but in GScholar sometimes appears also "Latin" spelling Wenceslaus so the number also is not absolutely clear. --marv1N (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

user name change for Slartibertfass

Dear admins, I am an editor in the german (de) wikipedia and was forced to change my username there, before doing that I have created my account here in en.wiki, quick question, shall I ask you to change my username here as well, or shall I work with two different ones? I am thinking of writing an article here soon, I am happy with my user user rights and since I am not a native speaker, I am happy that an editor approves my articles, hope this is fine with you. Any help appreciated with my username. My new user name in de.wiki is "SlartibErtfass der bertige". Apologies for maybe misusing this site, but I couldn´t find a better one for my request. Thanks a lot -- Slartibertfass (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CHU. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

that was fast, great!thx -- Slartibertfass (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's spelt Slartibartfast. But I told you it wasn't important. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Keegan (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Resolved

Please note Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention‎ is backlogged. Thank you. Majorly talk 12:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleared up. TNXMan 14:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

vandalism, personal attacks, racism

User:Pashtun786, very likely a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:NisarKand?!) is writing racist stuff on various talkpages, for example here or here. I consider his comments vandalism and will revert them. Tajik (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I left a message on his talk page; let's see if it takes. If edits similar to what I just reverted at Talk: Pashto language are done any more, I'd just suggest an indef block as someone obviously only here to cause trouble. No comment on the banned user theory, I don't know enough about it to guess one way or the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not being as forgiving as Floquenbeam I have indef blocked the editor, noting that they should remain blocked for as long as they are prepared to indulge in such language. In matters such as this, it is my habit to check the edits of the reporting editor to ensure that this is not a content dispute being gamed. It appears not, but I am concerned with edits by User:Tajik such as this, where another casually made claim of possible sockpuppetry is made. Fortunately that editor did not respond negatively, and indeed engaged in some productive discussion. However, this appears to signal a mindset that editors who oppose or differ from Tajik's viewpoint are part of a conspiracy or are otherwise not sufficiently informed to edit certain ethnic/cultural topics. This is a very unfortunate attitude, and not one that is conducive to open and collegiate contributing. If there are suspicions of abuse of accounts, there are processes that should be used. If an edit is made to an article that appears incorrect, then a discussion should take place rather than a noting that the edit was reverted. Without such basic courtesies, there is a greater likelihood of disruption as regards content disputes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns noted. You should also note that I am working in a field where a large number of sockpuppets can be found. User:NisarKand, for example, has more than 100 (!) confirmed sockpuppets - see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NisarKand. As for the other user: I actually apologized to him. But that does not change the fact that some other users suspected him to be a sockpuppet. Tajik (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Overwrite risk using the "Reword" script tool

Just a general warning to all admins to watch out for careless usage of the Reword tool. It appears that the tool ignores edit conflicts and simply overwrites. This was discovered when a Reword user (innocently) erased an Arbitrator vote in a case request. The clerks have since found two other instances of overwrites in ArbCom pages (none affecting votes fortunately).

Bug alerts have been left with the author, but he/she has not been online for roughly two months, so it is unclear whether these issues will be repaired. So if you use it yourself please be careful, and please watch out for overwrites when you see it being used. Manning (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The bug appears to have been fixed by Decltype (talk · contribs). Thanks!  Sandstein  07:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! It looked nifty except for the overwriting bit. Manning (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tim Song (talk · contribs) and myself independently discovered the bug in the code, and a fix has been implemented. I believe it is now safe to use. decltype (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Administrator Intervention over a lack of overall intervention at WP:NEWT

However much I was hoping it'd be useful, I'm throwing a flag up and making a general plea that "something" be done with the now-infamous WP:NEWT project page and discussion. The "testing" has been on a few weeks now with an unknown percentage of actual tests really reported, an unknown number of users that were publicly shamed for mistakes, and a talk page turning into patrols of all user levels openly saying they won't be on NPP anymore. Even though things are "better" the past few days and things have been better about sharing user info publicly, this lovely ANI yesterday after a big misunderstanding got rough. It was closed off fairly quickly and moved over to the NEWT talk page on resolved → no admin action required. Okay, I can go with that since it was a rather sizable misunderstanding. There were a few bigger concerns on the ANI, but it's no longer the actual actions of it but rather the whole concept of the covert actions and project in general that has people stung. Part of that incident regarded a patrol who even spotted a "new user" as being a Tester account, and unpleasantries ensued... mostly a lot of frustration and confusion, but not the sort of discussion a group of dedicated page editors and AGF-template-toting patrols bickering about something completely unnecessary. You break it, you bought it-- at least some good has to come from this all or it'll just mean more pain for everyone.

The purpose of the project? It was done once before about a year ago and it put some insight into deletion patrols. Some kind of science experiment? Okay, since desperately need some A7 adjustments in hopes of fielding less angry mail from other users. We can fix our half of the equation, at least. First big reason I'm here; it's not going anywhere. There have been a handful of admins that did a "test run" and moved to discussion or have talked it out more, but a good deal of the admins who printed up the first reports and humiliated a handful of editors have been mysteriously absent from talk since. It's extremely discouraging to know the persons most interested in the test results seemed to care more for a field trip than for good faith users on patrol, often without any attempt to clean up a mess they helped make. This all reminds me of a horrible shielded spy system placed on staff I ran into at a prior job, only this is far more evil since all comments are public and in a log somewhere and it's volunteer work! Let's... hope someone can think cough up a good idea now, at least. Again, my thanks to admins who have been around in discussion after tests or have hung around even after accidentally getting caught up in it since it's at least a different type of perspective.

Second big reason I mentioned at the top; users are openly saying they won't be doing patrols any more. Okay, it's not in bulk, but losing even 1 from this is unacceptable. We're not the guinea pigs of bored admins. Even if this is just "harmless testing" it's not acceptable to deliberately create article in extremely low quality that were still extremely questionable as possible CSD candidates. No one's opinion is absolute, but it was though no one was allowed to give a different opinion of the submitted text. Again, I do really appreciate those who stayed around and shared their thoughts and had some direct conversations with other users (polite ones!), but there were plenty that were less-than-polite as well. It's horribly embarrassing to people around, and I can see how the community overall wouldn't much like to read about how admins were seeming to toy with their brothers-in-arms. This aspect of trying to improve article quality and patrol/admin duties PR is quite a failure. Personally, I haven't learned a thing besides knowing to triple-check a user's contribution history to look for obvious hints of a test account, which might be so ridiculously obvious that the owning long-time admin even created the testersock's user page on the admin username. A lot of patrols would never see that, but many of us do as well, and even I'll admit to reading through talk pages of admins that had diverging opinions with other patrols to make sure I wasn't doing something horribly wrong in their opinion just because I really really never wanted to need to argue over certain hot-button issues for them if it were ever to come up.

What very seriously needs to be addressed for NPP and new contributing users alike that admins or community need to consider sooner rather than later:

• Well-defined guidelines to make CSD A7s as avoidable as possible, via offering common and polite templates involving incubations, userfication, and/or use of {{newpage}} & {{construction}}, etc., so that as patrols we can get back to the thing in a bit or quick work on it to try to raise it to a low-end stub status to avoid deletion of what we might thing is savable.
• WE DO NOT WANT TO BITE THEM and really want to save new articles, but it's extremely time consuming to do a rushjob legitimate save that includes some actual research and source-finding. ...So help, please. Since we should be sending a more personalized message anyway... well, to be blunt? It needs to be simplified enough so that basically anyone who patrols could have a way to easily mark a new page as "AGF New Page" to with a very polite message pointing out a few last details needed sent to the user to get them involved in avoiding deletion, but in a format that makes it as easily as smacking a PROD or CSD on something is currently. It would need another menu choice, basically.
• No more use of patrols as guinea pigs, public or private. If you want data, put the article on your watchlist and note the history later and you wouldn't have to do a thing. I cannot say enough how demoralizing it is to see such an elitist attitude toward editors working for the same community goal. See some other ANI. Note: I'm at least trying to not en-or-discouraging anything done up to now, but when it gets disruptive it's too much either way.

What we do have so far, kind of, but barely related to WP:NEWT at most:

• A proposed used of CSD-A10 that would help patrols harmlessly push aside hoax/BLP and some A7-9 with giant red banners and icons appearing everywhere.
• What might actually end up being some templates at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication, with TW/HG support at least theoretically possible.
• Some starter proposals on bite reduction.

Thank for reading, and any thoughts are welcome.. I just felt a need to spit this out since I'm just endlessly frustrated about it and can't even remember why anymore. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive search seems to be broken

Archive search seems to be broken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Jwesley78 can't be found using it (Here, near the top, in the blue frame. I found it by going through the ANI page edit history. (It got archived with non-admin comments, only and no admin action.) Seems to be over 24 hours behind; this archived it. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Still broken. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Methinks someone shoul edit IncidentsHeader to note that the search feature is temporarily broken. Adding "Note: not working as of 14Nov09" next to the button should do the trick.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was able to find this by typing "Jwesley78" into the search bar. The search engine may lag behind the archiving for a few days. –xeno^talk 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of signatures — input requested

Hi all,

I've been doing some discussion on the LiquidThreads feedback page about the future of user signatures.

Here's a summary of the discussion to date:

Signature vandalism is difficult to trace and prevent in LiquidThreads. This is compounded by the fact that at present, when a user changes their signature, it propagates across all threads they have posted.

A few solutions have been proposed:

• Allowing administrators to reset and lock a user's signature.
• Resetting a signature when a user is blocked.
• Limiting the customisability of signatures.
• Technically limiting signature content.
• Removing the functionality whereby signatures are automatically updated.
  • Storing the signature in the wikitext.
  • Storing the signature separately.

At present, the final option is considered more sane, but further feedback is being sought.

I'd like to solicit further feedback from the community on where we want to go with regard to signatures. Please leave comments in the thread on the LiquidThreads wiki, to keep things central.

— Werdna • talk 12:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy deletions

• Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Has speedy deleted many user pages under WP:G8, even though it doesn't apply to them. I request they all be restored immediately.--Otterathome (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want specific pages brought back, please list them, along with the rationale for restoring them. "G8 doesn't apply" doesn't work for a restoration argument unless we know which ones it doesn't apply to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. A glance shows User talk:Msilvamarketing, which was a redirect to User talk:Oliveroreo. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I think Otterathome means is that WP:G8 should never apply, as the literal text says "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular... user and user talk pages." AFAICT, though, all of those deleted pages were broken redirects created as a result of moves. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Spotchecking [8] seems to support that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• These could have just as easily been done as "G6" and I endorse the deletions. If you want the one that was your page, a redirect to a red link restored, I can do so though Otter. –xeno^talk 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'd guess that what triggered this report was User:Otterathome/Substantial sources/doc, which seems to be a remnant of this AfD. Seems like a proper deletion, as the template itself was deleted already. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So if several of us don't see anything wrong with (the sampling of these, not to be considered vetting of every single one, that some of us have looked at), perhaps we need to rework the description on G8 so it is more lucid wrt user and usertalks that are redirects to deleted pages (with or without afd's). Syrthiss (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the section of G8 - "redirects to invalid targets" with these - without any specific page listed, it's not possible to know what one was the specific problem. My reading of this is... G=General=applies to all namespaces, IMHO including user pages w/no history - such as leftovers from moves or vandalism "redirects". I don't see any particular use to the project in any of those. Realistically, as Xeno says, G6 would also apply. Skier Dude (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, why do we even have G8 as its own criteria? Anything that's G8 could easily be covered by G6...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

G8 used to be just for Talk pages of deleted pages, while R1 was for redirects to invalid or deleted targets. The criteria were merged some time ago. G6 is a general catch-all criteria for procedural deletions such as history merges, empty Dated Maintenance categories, and the like - usually deletions that are part of some other process. Put another way, G8 describes the page being deleted, while G6 pertains to the process calling for the deletion. It could be argued, I guess, but it might cause some confusion to merge the two. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BURO. If they should have been deleted anyways (a quick check indicates they likely should) and there is some ambiguity over whether or not G8 or G6 is the more appropriate ratioale, though either appears somewhat valid (there is) then there is no point to undeleting them. Wikipedia is not many things, and chief among those is process for process sake... --Jayron32 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT helps detect disruptive sockpuppeteer

FYI: Thewtfchronicles has been confirmed via SPI as a sock of CNGLITCHINFO. Thewtfchronicles had inappropriately tagged several new stub articles for speedy deletion, and had also earned blocks for unrelated edit warring. The sockmaster account had been indefinitely blocked shortly before the new account was created. Durova³⁶⁶ 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This belongs on the WP:NEWT talk page, not here. Jtrainor (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

??? This is useful info for admins and a lot more admins watch this page than WT:NEWT. Wknight94 ^talk 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect what Jtrainor meant is this section heading seems to be chosen oddly wrt to the information content of this section. More like "SEE THEY AREN'T ALL BAD" vs "Thewtfchronicles confirmed as sock and banned". Syrthiss (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Jtrainor (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. Putting lipstick on pig doesn't transform it into Miss America. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Send Virus

Resolved

No idea what this does, but felt it best reported somewhere. SunCreator (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything but Jessedanielryder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should definitely be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User warned. He has not edited in nearly 12 hours. If he starts up in the future, please report to WP:AIV. Thanks, NW (Talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigation listings

Hi. We don't have a notice template yet, so I'm rather informally notifying that there have been four new investigations opened at WP:CCI since it became active:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vlad9
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Matthew06 87
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Slovenian military-patriot
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jcuk

Assistance evaluating and cleaning copyright problems with these or with the older ones (grandfathered in from the less formal processes at WP:COPYCLEAN is appreciated. (And on the positive side, we just archived our first completed through CCI. Whoot.))--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Justastud15. MER-C 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And another one: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lou72JG. MER-C 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... we're getting one per day. Have this instead: {{CCIlist}}. (Can we put this in the noticeboard header here and on ANI?) MER-C 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:repeat vandal - does it serve any real purpose?

While processing blocks at WP:AIV today, I noticed that many of the requests that I declined as "insufficiently warned" had {{repeat vandal}} on the talk page of the IP in question. So this got me wondering ... does the template actually do anything beneficial for the project? Although the current version of the the template is much better than the previous version [9] that conflicted with WP:BLOCK's requirement that editors be warned before being blocked (something that was fixed only after the template was sent to TfD in 2007), I just do not see how it serves any real purpose now. The template does nothing for admins because we automatically levy "extended blocks" based on the edit history and the durations of previous blocks. Likewise recipients of the template are not going to pay any more attention to it than they do to any of the myriad of other warning templates on their talk pages.

Other than clutter up IP talk pages and AIV with notifications that no one uses, as well as adding talk pages to the equally useless Category:IP addresses used for vandalism, does anyone see some positive benefit to the template that I missed? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for good users of a public IP? They sit down at a library terminal, immediately see an orange bar and click on it, and the first thing on the resulting talk page is {{repeatvandal}} so they know why there are 82 warnings on the page. Am I reaching? Otherwise, I agree with you that it has no use to admins. And the category really has no use and should be deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 13:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Warnings are for the person committing the violation, not for the IP address. Unless it is clear that the person being reported to AIV has been adequately warned and that that person has continued to vandalize after having the opportunity to respond, then a block is not usually appropriate. If a repeatvandal tag was added to an IP talk page 4 months ago, there is no guarantee that the person vandalizing today was editing 4 months ago, and seen that tag. The tag is very useful, however. I usually use it when I clear old warnings from a page; sometimes an IP talk page will have like 3 years worth of warnings; that is excessive and silly, so I will often clear all but the most recent month and replace it with a "repeatvandal" tag; it has the same effect; letting everyone know this IP is a problem, but it is MUCH less cluttered. However, the existance or non-existance of such a tag does not absolve us from issuing warnings before blocking. --Jayron32 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you confused me here. If warnings are for the person committing the vandalism, not for the IP address .... then why do we need {{repeat vandal}} to tell us that the IP has been a problem? Since the person behind an IP is often highly dynamic, vandal-fighters should be warning and reporting IPs to AIV regardless of if the IP has ever been blocked. We already know that neither the presence nor absence of this template has any effect on if/for how long an admin is willing to block an IP. Likewise using this template to replace three years worth of old warnings does not strike me as being ideal since the template makes not mention of past warnings. A more effective template for that job would be something like {{s/wnote}} or {{Old IP warnings top}} that explicitly reminds people that older warnings may have been archived. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it useful because it lets me know how deep to look when investigating the possibility of a schoolblock or something like it. Its just a good reminder to admins to investigate deeper before proceeding; some admins may not need such reminder, but some may. It also, as noted above, could serve as a notice to the many users of the IP to understand why it may be blocked sometimes, etc. etc. Ultimately, its harmless and some editors find it useful (myself among them) so there's little reason to get rid of it. --Jayron32 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin closure of RfC needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

productive conversation has moved to the RFC talk page in question. Further discussion here serves no additional purpose.--Jayron32 03:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Could an uninvolved admin please close this RfC. There appears to be some disagreement on how to close it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Given how ready you were to certify this, I don't believe it is appropriate for you to close this either as that action would've been in direct conflict with the community consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was ready to move the RfC from the proposed to active list. That step would have been an acknowledgement that the RfC was already properly certified by two users. I never engaged in a discussion with dab over the disputed matter. There's no way I could have certified the RfC myself. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• There was a community consensus that this RfC was an unhelpful and "needless escalation of a long-settled, dormant and, ultimately, minor kerfuffle". The other endorsements also agreed that the IP involved was a sock: checkuser later confirmed this. Plenty of feedback was also given, particularly to the filing party, to drop the stick earlier on in disputes, and that further discussion was not necessary. One member of the filing party had given a half-handed "apology" to the subject, and wants this to be recognised in the summary - however, historically, no RfC/U has included such details in the conclusion. Rd232 is trying to pretend that he acted appropriately in the circumstances; that's just not true, and his inability to drop the stick proves that. I ask that the admin closing this uphold the community consensus expressed in the RfC so that we can all move on without any more needless drama escalating, again, as a result of Rd232. Someone who hasn't made any comments in relation to this dispute, or the involved users, would be preferrable so that this doesn't need to be revisited in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A user can easily read the RfC and see the opinions. In my closing statement I am trying to avoid casting blame at those who filed the RfC. We should try to let disputes dissipate, and we should try to avoid blaming people who use dispute resolution to try to settle differences. The process seems to have worked well. There was a dispute; it's been settled. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Avoiding casting blame at those who filed the RfC" does not really summarise what happened. I agree disputes should be dissipated, but not by misleading summaries. The process should not have occurred; to then say it "worked well" leaves too many material details out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we need to liberally allow the use of dispute resolution. In every case somebody is wrong. About 50% of the time it will be the filing party. When somebody uses dispute resolution in good faith and discovers they are wrong, the result speaks for itself. There is no need to cast additional fault on them for requesting help with a dispute. In this RfC I do not see any evidence or asserting that the filing parties acted in bad faith. Error is not bad faith. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I've reviewed Jechochman's 'involvement' in this RFC ([10] [11]) and don't believe it precludes him from closing it and have restored his closure. (This is not necessarily an endorsement of the closure itself) –xeno^talk 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Have reverted this so that it is closed without a summary for the time-being; the close was disputed more so than the closer. Until we can come to a consensus on how this should be worded, it is inappropriate to restore a disputed version. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of not dropping the stick... Tan | 39 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Commented here. –xeno^talk 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • (ec) I have reverted again because I can see no indication here or on the RfC page or its talk page that anyone else agrees with you. Jehochman's summary is excellent. Surely the fact that it permits the editors who opened the RfC to keep face, after they have agreed that they were mistaken, is not the kind of 'problem' that needs to be 'fixed' before discussion. Since you have reverted 3 times on that page I guess the revert war is over now. Hans Adler 14:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Fut Perf's RfC/U was reverted for having any summary over this precise problem that users are disputing summaries that were written. If it was excellent, it wouldn't be disputed. Inserting yourself into a dispute so that someone else would be restricted due to 3RR is grossly inappropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not my fault that you have been so active reverting on that page. It's also not my fault if nobody else is interested in taking up your stick and continuing the attacks on the ex-horse. I counted your reverts after I reverted you. I confess I wasn't surprised by the result, but surely we don't have a rule saying that if a single editor has reverted three times against several others the last revert must stick to avoid unfairness to the lone edit warrior? Hans Adler 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                • My response to you was below. In light of our positions being clarified there, I don't think these characterisations are very fair or accurate. I hope you'd amend them accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • The reason why I haven't commented recently is because I am no longer sure it was right to revert you, but am currently unable to come any clear opinion about this entire affair. I am striking my above statement to mark this. I wouldn't make it again, since I currently don't really have any opinion either way. Does this satisfy your concern for the moment? Hans Adler 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • It does; thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) @ Ncmvocalist - so is edit warring over a close (inappropriate that is). Syrthiss (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so we've become a bureaucracy all for procedure with no consideration of substance? If that's the case, it is little wonder there is practically little to no disagreement that some admins are incapable of resolving things properly. It's funny how admins support admins on points like this, yet all your opinions were no where to be found when Dbachmann's RfC/U was open or when problematic editing occurs on-site. Feh. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere on this project about BRD. I wasn't aware that it didn't apply to all areas of the project. As someone who has at times felt that your comments on situations mirrored mine, I felt that I should step in and comment when it did not. I am not making these comments as an administrator (no threats of blocks, no rollbacks hinted at) so its odd that you would bring that into my comment. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I misplaced my response; sorry. It was more in response to Hans Adler (above) who considered it appropriate to characterise me as a "lone edit-warrior" in his comment which was just before yours (and he left the claim as is). That said, I see that I might've (mis)interpreted your comment to be endorsing that. The issue is that I'd reverted the bold edit which was not considered acceptably by broad community consensus (that is, not just the RfC consensus). In other words, I considered the edit-warring occurring when a number of admins got involved by reverting to the bold version when it was clearly being disputed. Since then, Xeno has understood what I was saying and has noted that the community consensus was not written into the accompanying standards (and so that's being remedied now). Ideally, if it was written there, these reverts may not have occurred to begin with as there would've been near no ambiguity. In any case, thank you for following this up and clarifying as I might've missed this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) User:Hans Adler has now entered this revert war. User:Jehochman's summary is not accurate: it does not reflect the comments. Jehochman was involved in the drama that generated this needless RfC. I am completely in agreement with Ncmvocalist. I should also add that I was alarmed at Rd232's attempts to have the "last word", which included trying to close the RfC himself. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I closed the RFC because some time after the filing parties made it clear that they were supporting this, and despite email requests to an uninvolved admin, the close had not been effected. I probably would have left it (as it would of course be better for an uninvolved party to close), but in view of the increasing hysterics over formally closing a process that had fulfilled its purpose (erm, dispute resolution - dispute resolved), I closed it with what I thought was the most relevant summary for future reference, particularly by anybody who might have a grudge against Dbachmann, partly in response to Abecedare's point on the RFC talk page. For this reason I used {{hat}} too (though I discover now its autocollapsing depends on Javascript, by the by). At this point I'm happy for any summary the community agrees to be made; or none at all, though I would prefer one which makes it clear that the community agreed Dab was not at fault. (I don't think reading the RFC is a substitute for a summary at all; in general, I think summaries may be useful in some, if not all, cases, which is why I made {{RFCUsummary}}.)

Finally, there are a few editors here who if I were a third party coming to this mess, I would admonish for their increasingly hysterical attacks on editors who had made a good-faith attempt at dispute resolution; in particular for their bizarre demands that the parties should "drop the stick". An RFC that has been launched and certified has no procedures for closing prior to the filing parties concerns' being addressed; thus it is not a "stick" to be dropped, but a train to be brought to a halt. And the moment those concerns were addressed (by Abecedare's pointing out of some remarks of Dab which revealed a fundamental misunderstanding which changed the whole picture), the RFC was brought to a close about as swiftly as can reasonably be expected. (To be clear, as was stated repeatedly and repeatedly ignored, 20/20 hindsight on the socking was irrelevant, since it was Dab's decision-making at issue - so what mattered was what Dab knew/thought, not what could be proved subsequently.) Those editors who in increasingly strident terms condemned the filing parties for not withdrawing the RFC even though their concerns hadn't been addressed at that point should be clear that if the RFC had been withdrawn earlier, the dispute would not have been resolved as fully as it was. And by the by, Dab's emailed reply to my apology (same as the one I posted on his user talk) was a lot more dignified and appropriate "let's move on" than the tone being adopted by some people. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will let everyone discuss what the summary should say and will do nothing further myself with regard to that. As a practical matter, the summary doesn't matter much. Read the RfC yourself if you want to know exactly what it says. I believe further hondling over the summary would be unproductive. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That was the reason why we didn't do summaries in the first place. Anyway, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4#Proposals is now active. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Closure requested

Resolved

No great hurry, but the long thread here would benefit from closure. Nothing new is being said by either side at this point. ~YellowFives 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The "delete" !voters are now being accused of advancing Sharia and NAMBLA. This is going downhill. Was WP:AN the wrong place for this? I just saw other requests for closure here and figured this was the place. ~YellowFives 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Functionaries

Who is the list moderator for en-functionaries? I sent in a very simple request for a Checkuser opinion that is needed to consider an unblock request. It's been 8 hours, and there's no response. I am not happy it takes so long to process the user's unblock request. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the matter can be handled on-wiki you could always post at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. –xeno^talk 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've filed quite a few requests, but have not noticed the Quick Requests section. :D Thanks for the tip. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Drat, that won't work. It says "not related to sock puppetry". In my experience, it takes one to two days to get a sockpuppetry request looked at. This is unacceptably slow, in my opinion, when a user has made a colorably legitimate request to be unblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I am one of the list moderators, and I have moderated your emails. There are several of us in different time zones, but it seems nobody else was available earlier today. I believe Fred Bauder has offered to address your request. I will review the moderator list over the weekend to see if we need to improve coverage or if this is a one-off issue; it's rare that it takes much more than an hour or two for something to come through. Risker (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've not used this list before. Oversight-l has always provided such fast responses that I've become a bit spoiled. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IAR sir, IAR. =) –xeno^talk 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki-Termites" definition

Can anybody provide a better definition of "Wiki-Termites"?

Wiki-Termites (not to be confused with Termites) are a group of self-organized Wikipedia users, possibly including administrators, who may cause a serious damage to the project by purposely eating out or vandalizing valuable information from Wikipedia articles. 69.108.109.128 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User drafts and advertisements

Recently I have been lurking in the Recent Changes and on occasions I notice newly created articles that shows hints of promotional purposes. This is not always the case but most of the time it happens to be the exact same thing as if using their own user space to their advantage. Does anyone seem to notice this as well? MajorMinorMark (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to user-pages essentially written as promotional articles, I've noticed an increase in this too - via AIV reports rather than recent changes/NPP, though. I've deleted (G11) two or three within the last few hours. EyeSerene^talk 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am referring to. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• For those that do not understand what I am trying to say, take a look at this example of what me and EyeSerene are talking about. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to make a distinction between obvious advertising and legitimate articles under development, but it's certainly a grey area and one in which (especially when usernames match the article subject and an earlier mainspace article has been deleted) I tend to apply WP:CSD#G11 quite strictly. EyeSerene^talk 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On an related matter, I made a essay concerning these "promotional drafts" as I like to call them. MajorMinorMark (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This search finds some sample promotional pages. I have noticed the phenomenon of WP:SPA users creating a promotional article, or just adding promotional links, then, when looking at the user's pages, I see that they have a similar promotional article. The pages appear in Google searches, and that may be sufficient reason for a spammer to create them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That could be some useful information as well as part of an explanation for these increases in promotional drafts. MajorMinorMark (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible (or would it be desireable) to make all user pages automatically __NOINDEX__? It won't stop Google and similar picking up the spam articles before they are deleted, but at least user page spam won't appear on there. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That is only part of the problem, sure it might help out with the problem some but it isn't an one hundred present solution as they are making them in user subpages, perhaps we should make it to where you have to wait two days before being granted the right to make subpages or at least some sort of system in which we can catagorize the involved drafts. MajorMinorMark (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The major historical objection to making userspace noindexed (which would be trivial to do in our robots.txt file) is that editors sometimes use a Google search to look for problematic userspace pages that should be deleted. Of course, between our much-improved current search function and the existing ability to exclude individual pages from indexing, it's not so clear that we need that option as much anymore. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Even so, there would still be the objection that good faith contributors might want their profile to be found through an internet search. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC on this topic in June - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing - which became an almighty mess for structural/procedural reasons. But it suggested a possible consensus might be achievable at a later date for noindexing userspace, with the exception of userpages. There was some discussion that opt-in indexing, if permitted at all, might be limited to trusted users (most obviously autoconfirmed). At any rate, in the mean time there are tags such as {{Userspace draft}} which apply NOINDEX as well as providing some help to the user. These can be applied by anyone to userspace drafts, particularly promotionalish ones. Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what should occur with the promotional pages found by this search? Some hits are well intentioned (a group of educators wanting to exchange ideas); others are just adverts. Should such pages be blanked? If a subpage, {{db-promo}}? Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I can't stand seeing them use Wikipedia as one of their sales platforms for any given amount of time. Pickbothmanlol 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Tag with {{userpage}} and remove all categories, for a start. Writing up an article in userspace is acceptable as long as there is an intention to move to mainspace, if the article subject is previously deleted or obviously unviable as an article and the user has no other contributions at all then consider a deletion request either as CSD#G11 or via AfD. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A purposal concerning formerly banned users.

This idea just came to me after reading about Recreation in the People's Republic of China that would offer optional help specifically for formerly banned users that seek to help refresh their mind in a simple and effective manner about certain policies or advice on how to better decrease the risk of said user getting banned for the same reason.

Obviously there are risks involved including that the most common reason for a ban is vandalism and the said user that was somehow unbanned decided to wreck the purposed "Recreation Center". I thought the idea might sound interesting and I am wondering if this could be a idea that could catch on. Pickbothmanlol 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, please slow down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Many "formerly banned users" are in a state of flux between banned and unbanned because they tend to have deep-seated views, agendas, and the like that they repeatedly push onto WP. These users, hate to say it, don't give two shakes of my tail about Wikipedia policy. All they care about is Wikipedia's gargantuan Alexa ranking (which means they have a higher likelihood of getting people to see it and come to their side). And for some of these users, attempts were made to get them to understand policy, but they did not care to listen. I can't count the number of ArbComm cases that have been pushed forward and that have featured at least one site- or topic-ban where the sanctioned parties refused to understand even the barest-faced bit of WP policy - and in the majority of those cases, a sanctioned user has had his ban reset for violating it. I hold very little hope for something like this working. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation

Resolved

 – User blocked. –xeno^talk 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got an impersonation here. Ryurong is impersonating Ryulong. Ryurong is probably a sockpuppet of japanhero. Apparently I'm going to be blocked until I die. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll contact Nishkid64 about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

Unblock request

I am placed under 1RR. Could it please be lifted? I believe I now better understand WP policies. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You would have more results from making the request from your original account's talk page, along with easing the trouble of people that could pontentially ban you for block evasion. Pickbothmanlol 13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have discontinued that account and upheld the 1RR with my new account as well. But I will follow your advice.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can't since my old page and talk have been locked as per my request.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it was an ARBMAC sanction, the correct channel for a review would be WP:AE. When you file an appeal, Please include links to your old account, the AE discussion that triggered the sanction, the relevant discussions on your old talk page, and don't forget to notify the responsible admin (Thatcher?). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will do so.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: actually, now that I looked it up, ARBMAC (unlike some other similar arbcom rulings) mentions AN, not AE, so whatever. I guess either forum will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. In this case I have notified user:Thatcher and dug up the relevant link hereHope that helps.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• It seems reasonable to lift the 1RR at this point. New problems in the ARBMAC area should be brought to WP:AE for attention but hopefully there won't be any. Thatcher 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review on User:Jackie JP

I think I may have made a bad block on User:Jackie JP, despite the COI and NPOV issues involved with the Juice Plus article. Per User talk:MuZemike#Unblock request from Jackie JP, it was suggested that I may have acted hastily in my actions, even though no other administrator has come forth in addressing this SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuliaHavey). I'd like some more community input in whether or not these were good blocks I have made. MuZemike 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was the one reviewing the unblock request. Although there are serious problems with that article and many accounts that have edited it, I don't think there is any evidence that Jackie JP is a sockpuppet. Also, in the few edits she made, she followed WP:COI to the letter. However, another user named TraceyR, who does have a remarkable COI problem, is confusing the issue with her incredibly uncompelling defense of Jackie JP. rspεεr (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with rspeer on this one. I do not see anything objectionable in Jackie JP's edits - the same cannot be said for certain other users in this mess, however. Tim Song (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I might be permitted to ask for the evidence of my "remarkable COI problem". Until now this was simply the opinion of one non-admin editor (User:Rhode Island Red]]. It is beyond me why this is now uncritically accepted by rspεεr. I have already denied COI wrt this article. Perhaps rspeer would also like to justify the statement "incredibly uncompelling defense of Jackie JP". I have not been defending her, mere attempting to counter Rhode Island Red's unjustified SPI allegations in her case. As has been mentioned above, she followed COI to the letter, so the allegation was obviously unjustified. What on earth is going on here? When can I expect the lynch mob at my door? :-)--TraceyR (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a COI, why have you been arguing so strenuously for Wikipedia to have more positive coverage of Juice Plus? rspεεr (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the query, which I'll gladly answer. I am not "arguing strenuously for positive coverage of Juice Plus". No evidence has been advanced for this viewpoint but Rhode Island Red continues to allege COI. My intention has always been for accurate coverage worthy of an encyclopedia. Unfortunately this usually involves countering the negative slant I perceive from Rhode Island Red. His low opinion of Juice Plus ("in the grand scheme, it is a trivial and insignificant small-fry product whose market share would barely be a blip on the radar."here) is on record and he obviously finds it difficult to be neutral when editing. Look at it as a pendulum if you like: if it has been pulled too far to the (negative) side, then any edit which attempts to pull it back towards the neutral central position can be seen as positive, even though the final result is neutral. He obviously feels the same.

A recent example might be useful to illustrate this process: As I understand it, we are supposed to report what the sources say from a WP:NPOV standpoint; omitting salient data to make a non-neutral point is incompatible with WP policy.

Compare the following sentences:

Other more rigorous studies, including three that were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, found that homocysteine levels were not reduced; In two other double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, reductions of homocystein by 20% and 8.4% were reported. In the latter study, the authors commented upon the fact that "plasma homocysteine concentrations decreased ... despite the high dietary intake of folic acid at baseline"diff

Other more rigorous studies, including three that were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, found that homocysteine levels were not reduced or were reduced to a much lesser extent than originally reported. (in current Juice Plus article)

The latter version, from Rhode Island Red, was entered with the comment "if the percentages are going to cause problems, remove them; they aren't necessary to make the point"diff". The point he is trying to make is that the later studies showed smaller reductions than the preliminary study, without reporting (a) what these levels were, and (b) what the authors said about one of these levels. In an intermediate edit (before he decided that the percentages weren't required to make his point) he even went as far as to recalculate one of them and replace the 8.4% from the study with his preferred value of 7.0%! The expression "to a much lesser extent than originally reported" shows what he is driving at; "much" in this context is Rhode Island Red's opinion and is a further example of slant! Reporting the actual values leaves it up to the reader to come to his/her own conclusion.

I hope this illustrates the problem this article has suffered from over the last few years, and why it has been the subject of much heated debate (and an RfC on Rhode Island Red's behaviour there). I also realise that it takes two to have an argument. I'm sure that I have gone too far on occasions with comments about Rhode Island Red's behaviour (as he has with me). I think that the article should be unbiased - several independent editors (i.e. not including IPs and socks but including some admins) down the years have commented on its negative slant (see the talk page + archives for examples).

I hope that this provides some necessary background to this whole issue. It goes way beyond the SPI allegation about Jackie JP. --TraceyR (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some back story: I've been working with TraceyR and Rhode Island Red in regards to this article for more than a year now including trying some informal mediation to resolve their differences. Each will paint the other as the only bad guy and I'm sure every here can figure out that the truth lies somewhere in between. There has been and still is a problem with people associated with JuicePlus attempting to remove criticism from the article or bend the rules (and verifiability) to include positive claims. Rhode Island Red tends to fight against this (and is about the only other editor interested in the article). This latest round at SPI was one in a long line of inappropriate behavior by Julie Havey and co. Like it or not, most reliable sources report negatively about the product - that's not Wikipedia's fault and this is not the place to right that wrong.

Content differences aside, the main concern right now is behavioral. TraceyR and Rhode Island Red do not work well together; they often argue about each other as opposed to discussing content; personal attacks are common place. Neither of them is particularly objective about each other or the article. I also have a concern (and this is not the first time) that TraceyR is coaching people behind the scenes; she has also worked as a proxy for Julia Havey (who was responsible for most of the recent socks).

To this particular indicent: JackieJP displays amazing knowledge of Wikipedia and the years long struggle on the article. She abbreviates Rhode Island Red to RIR, a standard tactic of TraceyR and Julia Havey. She even uses abbreviations like COI and understood checkuser. Given that, I don't think the original block was unwarranted, however if she would explain how she acquired all this in six days and agree to avoid the problems that previous JuicePlus employees have caused, I don't think unblocking would be a problem. I have also noted the fact that JackieJP needs to send a confirmation of permission to OTRS in regards to the claim that she is authorized to release images copyrighted by the manufacturer. Shell ^babelfish 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell, just a few points: (1) (mentioned in the realisation that it be construed as support for Jackie JP - which it isn't): It may look as though Jackie JP first appeared a few days ago. In fact the first entry on her talk page (yes, from me) was on 30 October; I don't know when her user page was created, since it has since been deleted and reinstated; but her first contribution was on 13 October, over a month ago. I don't know where the idea came from that she has only been here for about a week. In that short time she has had ample time to learn the meaning of COI as a result of my least-favourite editor's allegations at the time! (2) To my knowledge I haven't referred to Rhode Island Red as "RIR" for ages (nor "Red"). Both suggest a degree of familiarity which I do not feel toward him. Perhaps you have tools to check for the last occurrence - I haven't. (3) It is easy to gain the impression from the article that "most reliable sources report negatively about the product"; this is the heart of the issue. All sorts of light-weight (i.e. non-notable) sources are cited to create this impression - e.g. several dieticians give their opinions about studies performed by genuine academics and published in peer-reviewed journals, but their views, e.g. in local newspapers, are considered more reliable. This is allowed by WP rules and is one strategy used to create this negative impression. (4) I'm surprised at the concern that I might be coaching people behind the scenes. I assure you that this is not the case; I'd be interested if you would care to elaborate, giving reasons for this suspicion. (5) Yes, Julia Havey wrote on my user talk page (I think) that there was an article by Isadore Rosenfeld which I might like to look at. I checked him out briefly (e.g. here) to find that he was a respected and notable medal-winning doctor. I checked out the site and cited it in the article. To my surprise I was jumped upon by Rhode Island Red and another user (Bhimadji?), who accused me of being Julia Havey's proxy and making insulting remarks about Dr. Rosenfeld into the bargain - very umpleasant! I'm nobody's proxy. I have pointed this out before, but it would seem that it needs to be repeated every so often. I'd appreciate some comments on the example texts from the article (given above).

So there it is. Take it or leave it. As a final aside: This incident has done nothing to increase my faith in WP's procedures. Quite the opposite. --TraceyR (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you feel you can explain most everything away. You've been an excellent editor and AFAIK never had any issues so long as your work was outside of this particular article. This is exactly why several people have tried to politely explain that you've got a bit of a blind spot and its affecting your judgement when it comes to things related to JuicePlus. Whatever the reason, you have very strong feelings about this article and it has affected your ability to edit and work with others in this context. Shell ^babelfish 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell, knowing what COI and checkuser are requires no more than reading the Juice Plus talk page, and in particular it was very important that Jackie JP had read WP:COI. But at this point, I might just conclude (as others apparently have already) that it's not worth unblocking JJP because every attempt to even discuss the situation just turns into another episode of the TraceyR show. rspεεr (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to read what is put in front of you and make informed judgements, but would rather hold onto preformed opinions, so be it. It's not worth bothering to try to discuss matters here. So much for AN - disappointing! I don't see the logical connection between what I am complaining about (Rhode Island Red's slanted stranglehold on the Juice Plus article and his unjustified allegations) and Jackie JP's unblock either. But I don't expect a response on this either. --TraceyR (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because edit-warring was still going on as recently as yesterday, to take some heat out of the situation while discussion is ongoing I've upped the page-protection to full. Frankly I don't believe we're losing much by not unblocking Jackie JP; sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, the COI/SPA is undeniable and the end result is the same. My hope (and advice!) is that, while the article is locked down, both TraceyR and Rhode Island Red will find something else to edit where their talents can be of more benefit to Wikipedia. EyeSerene^talk 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move. I agree with you that there's nothing to gain from unblocking Jackie JP at this point, so I've declined her unblock request. rspεεr (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If she'd indicated she wanted to work elsewhere (unlikely, given her stated reason for creating an account and SPA status to date) and because the article is protected, I think an unblock could have been viewed more favourably. We can only go by the evidence we have though, so I've got no argument with either your decision or MuZemike's original block :) EyeSerene^talk 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is Julia Havey (JuliaHavey). Some mistakes have been made. For the record: I have no clue who the following are: Patriot Missile (this person has years of editing history on subjects that are of NO interest to me!--what proof was used to assume this person was me or in any way connected to me?), Jackie JP (said clearly who she was yet she was written off as being me, or controlled by me?), 23 (someone who obviously edited sarcastically to prove that any one can edit whatever they want on this site, hats off to them! but that doesn't make them me. Nor does the use of !!!! make anyone me!), Wise Women (I could care less about the point she raised, I am not a scientific minded person nor do I ever care to be so), dubawubba (--just yet another editor trying to add factual information to the article only to be run off by RIR, Rhode Island Red, Red, or whatever cloaked name he prefer we use, and obviously, as many have over the past years, got frustrated by not being able to have their opinion or fact stand.) etc are. I have at no point ever recruited anyone to be my puppet as I am fully capable of speaking for myself. I find it offensive and laughable that every time anyone edits the Juice Plus article in any way other than Rhode Island Red's view point, he crows that it is me. I find it inexcuseable that he posted my home address, where minor children live mind you, on this very public forum and it was allowed to stand yet someone removed Jackies email address to protect her? A quick history check of the Wikipedia article on me shows this person's sick obsession with me. I find it to be "stalking" like behavior at the very least.

Juice Plus is a fine product with a great reputation that I personally take and feel that it is a well run company by people with great ethics and business savvy. The promotion of Juice Plus is not my obsession nor an area where much if any of my time is spent. I recommend it to my readers,as I recommend pedometers, exercise,drinking water...it's one thing of many that a person can do when trying to improve their lifestyle and make better choices. That is the extent of my involvement with Juice Plus.

I pointed out an article of interest to Tracy R as she seemed intent on making this article nuetral and thought that if the source checked out, it might be something that should be included in the article. I didn't edit the article, as I have been asked not to.

I just did a "what's my IP address" search. My IP address is 68.52.212.221 and according to this webpage, it pings to Franklin Tennesse. http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-details?ip=68.52.212.221 . As do a few hundred others: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/ip-search?ip_a=68&ip_b=52&ip_c=212. Interestingly, I belong to the local YMCA here and saw 3 people with Juice Plus T-Shirts on while there exercising this week. These are people that I don't know, didn't recognize and certainly haven't asked to be my puppets, yet they apparently like Juice Plus enough to wear TShirts emblazzoned with it. I don't even own one. They too may use comcast as their cable provider and therefore might "ping" close to my neighborhood, that thanks to your allowing Rhode Island Red to publish on this public forum has now put my family's safety at risk and caused us to hire a security service. Thanks for the serious breach of my privacy. There are serious problems here but not with me. If my name is ever mentioned on this forum again, by any of you, I will have my legal counsel investigate my options. This is going to stop. Now, feel free to block this IP as I do not edit this site and could care less how any of you sort through this mess, but it is in everyone's best interest to leave me out of it from this point forward. I have tolerated all that I intend to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the legal threat above, I suggest that an immediate block of JuliaHavey (talk) in warranted as per WP:NLT. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we to assume that it is a mere coincidence that content was deleted from the article by an anon SPA account registered to the same IP.[12] Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see anything objectionable about that edit, and it seems to be a month old, so it's not like it's evidence that JuliaHavey is still secretly editing the article. rspεεr (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, did you post JH's home address on Wikipedia? rspεεr (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I didn't post her home address. The accusation is 100% false. I don't bother dignifying half of the foolish accusations that these socks make by answering them. The edit in question was content blanking -- clearly objectionable, particularly since the IP domain of the user who made the edit is the same as JuliaHavey's and would therefore appear to have been another JuliaHavey sock. How is a Juice Plus distributor with a COI using an anon SPA/sock account to blank content not an objectionable edit? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just so you know as background -- the material that was deleted in that edit dealt with Juice Plus Gummies, which were the subject of controversy because research showed that they were inert and had high corn syrup content, and the company's advertising of the Gummies resulted in action by the BBB, who complained that it was misleading. All of this is referenced in the aricle, but because it reflects poorly on the company, SPA socks have been trying to delete it, without justification of course. I realize that content issues go beyond the scope of this thread but just thought you should know this because the blanking of this content was not as benign as you may have thought. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I want you all to look closely at the kind of comments that 68.52.212.221 (aka JuliaHavey) makes. This example speaks loudly about their approach and that of the sock accounts that have plagued the article. This is how JuliaHavey characterizes Dubawubba above:

JuliaHavey said: “dubawubba (--just yet another editor trying to add factual information to the article only to be run off by RIR, Rhode Island Red, Red, or whatever cloaked name he prefer we use,”

Now look at Dubbawubba’s actual contributions.[13] This is an SPA who made a point of refusing to engage in proper discussions about content and instead just made personal attacks and “I just don’t like it arguments”. They lasted a total of 5 days before unleashing several of the most offensive personal attacks I’ve seen to date on WP, and then got banned indefinitely. I urge you all to read them (noting in particular the death threats and vulgarity)[14][15][16] Now, I ask you all, is this the kind of editor that we as a community would characterize as “just yet another editor trying to add factual information to the article only to be run off by RIR”? I sure hope not. This reveals the dichotomy between the principles of WP and the interests of the Juice Plus sock accounts and COI violators.

Red, I've read the diffs, and they are obviously too crass for such an editor to be of further use to WP - it's even as worse as some established users I've seen over the years. And to seek having you blocked because you helped clean out COI stuff is wrong. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He most certainly posted my HOME address on WikiPedia, see #17:

A Google search indicates that the Haveys (Julia and husband Patrick Havey, who jointly operate a Juice Plus distirbutor ship under the name of the the "Health and Wellness Institute") formerly resided in St. Louis Missouri[16] up until about March of this year and then relocated to the Nashville, TN region (Brentwood, TN) sometime later this year.[17] first. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This editor has a very serious obsession with me and it is unwarrented and needs to STOP. He insists it's a lie that he posted my HOME address yet here it is in black and white, irrefutable! Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether that's a violation, but Havey neglected to mention where it was, FWIW.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan, posting the personal information about an editor is considered harassment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information Posting of personal information For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.

I hereby demand that Rhode Island Red be permanently blocked from Wikipedia for this gross violation of Wikimedia policy, putting both myself and my minor children at risk by posting our home address and phone number on Wiki via "citation". It is a serious breach and should not be taken lightly, especially given that he lied about doing so. Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not post anyone’s address.[17] I cited a relevant link to the publically available registration information for the website Weightlossbyjulia.com,[18], which pertained directly to the SP investigation. I did not discuss any details other than the city where the site was registered, noting that it was the same as that of one of the recent sock SPAs. The site registrant is listed as the Health and Wellness Institute. If this business’s information is confidential, then it shouldn’t be used in a widely accessible public registration database. This charge is but a ruse to get revenge and divert attention from the serious breaches of WP:COI and WP:SPA that were taking place prior to the blocks. Remarkably, the article has been competely stable now that the sock accounts have been blocked and the page has been semi-protected. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." AT NO TIME did I EVER "voluntarily post my own information" on WikiPedia, Rhode Island Red took it upon himself to identify my legal name, my home/or workplace address, work organisation, telephone number, email address and other contact information. HE devulged my information despite it being a violation of WikiMedia's very strict privacy rules. Until his devulging of this information,it was never a fact on Wikipedia that I own WeightLossByJulia.com (devulging a work organisation), that site was never part of any investigation and my address certainly was not posted on this site by ME first, which is the ONLY incidence that Wiki allows for such information to be posted. This editor is stalking me, clearly has a vendetta against me, and now his actions have put me at risk of harm outside of my activities on Wikipedia and is guilty of gross violation of the rules. If such a glarring violation of Wikimedia rules goes uncensored, it would certainly give rise to legal sanctions, including but not limited to full legal disclosure as to the identiy of the editor stalking me so that restraining orders can be in place for my protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked 68.52.212.221, quite belatedly, for making legal threats. rspεεr (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It’s obviously more than a remarkable coincidence that JuliaHavey (i.e. 68.52.212.221; Julia Griggs Havey) showed up to protest here within a few hours after the last of the 7 sock accounts has been blocked (i.e., Jackie JP, the alleged Juice Plus marketing employee). Or are we to believe that after almost 3 years of inactivity,[19] JuliaHavey just happened to stumble upon this thread by accident yesterday?

I also wonder why Havey is still socking via 68.52.212.221 instead of logging in from their existing user account.

The complaint by JuliaHavey/68.52.212.221 about divulgence of personal information is a red herring. The registration information for the site in question (weightlossbyjulia.com) was provided by the registrant to the domain registrar, and it is publically available through WHOIS (it is the same information as is listed for the website www.Juliahavey.com). The registration information listed was for a business (“Health and Wellness Institute”), not a residence or an individual. The registrant, not Wiki, bears responsibility for the fact that this information is in the public domain.

Nonetheless, if the complainant strongly felt that they were adversely affected by having a link to the registration details posted, they could have simply requested to have the link redacted from the original SPI complaint. They should not be requesting for another editor to be blocked simply for posting a link to this information as part of a well-warranted SPI. Instead, 68.52.212.221 has now been blocked for making legal threats. The last outstanding detail now is to block the original account as well (i.e., JuliaHavey) based on a history of chronic abuse, lack of productive contributions to WP, stubborn refusal to modify problem behavior, and evidence that they are still trying to game the system.

I also strongly suspect that JuliaHavey was either directly or indirectly responsible for the savage death threats that were being made recently. The following serves as behavioral evidence of this fact. The death threat[20] posted by Dubbawubba on Nov. 3 stated the following:

"When you die, and hopefully the news will get out about who died on the same day you quit editing (my money is on Dr. Barrett for your identity), no one is going to miss the wonderful Wiki editor who kept the world safe from fruits and vegetables."

JuliaHavey in previous posts, made a point of railing against Stephen Barrett and on at least one occasion had accused or implied that I am Dr. Barrett. [21] [22][23][24][25][26]

Lastly, I would like to point out another site operated by Havey (www.momsnutrition.com)[27] on which it appears that Juice Plus is being covertly marketed as a cure/treatment/prevention for various diseases, including cancer (JuliaHavey made a aimilar claim here about how Juice Plus apparently can treat cancer[28]) This provides further insight into the motivation for vandalism of the WP Juice Plus page, personal attacks, and repeated attempts to game the system. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea. I commend you for putting up with this, RIR. I still don't think there is evidence that Jackie JP is a sock of anyone in particular, but it doesn't matter at this point.

I believe we can agree that JuliaHavey is banned from Wikipedia, for many, many reasons including blatant conflict of interest, legal threats, and death threats. (Over diet pills. My god.) This is being enforced by blocking her account indefinitely, and blocking her IP for a month and for longer if necessary. (Placing indefinite blocks on IPs is bad practice, because IPs can change hands.) Furthermore, we can block any account for which there is evidence of being a sockpuppet of Julia Havey. You may want to write a report at Long Term Abuse so the issue isn't forgotten. rspεεr (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

page deletion

we accidentally made 2 of the same page 1 has the name wrong though and we need it deleted please it is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_:_Innocence we accidentally put a space after the w its a very stupid mistake and we would like you to please delete this for us. thank you

Justin Brown "jbrown89" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrown89 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blank the page, and it will get speedy deleted. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I could not find an original The Crow:Innocence I moved the above to that name. What is the article name you also created? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct title is obviously The Crow: Innocence (space after, but not before, the colon). We now have duplicate articles, at The Crow: Innocence (right) and The Crow:Innocence (wrong), as well as the redirect at The Crow : Innocence, which leads to the wrong version. Deor (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything above now points to The Crow: Innocence. Any person partial to incorrect use of the space will likely arrive at the correct article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user talk page

I have been having problems with vandalism on my user talk page. My talk page has been protected today for another week after a 30 day protection. It has been protected seven times. As soon as my talk page is NOT protected they vandalize it. I am getting tired of vandalism on my user talk page. Please help. I want it to go away. If this is even possible.

User talk:Zink Dawg (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone change the protection level of my talk page to a longer time, Like another 30 days or to indefinite..--Zink Dawg -- 20:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am checking with the sysop who re-sprotected for 7 days earlier today if they agree. I was thinking 3 months would deter all but the most determined vandal. There is a week before it becomes moot, so relax and get on with enjoying your editing while the admin corp lumbers into action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:76.202.223.133 and legal threats

I've just blocked 76.202.223.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) for a week based on them making threats to contact the police, see the edit summaries in their contributions and comments like, this and this.. While not quite a legal threat it has the same effect. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I look a bit more I'm kind of curious as to why that email was included. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I started a similar thread over at WP:ANI about this guy. Crafty (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the email for now but given the date it may well be acceptable to include it. However, I see no great rush to include it. I've notified both Zzuuzz (talk · contribs), who removed the email , and Gamaliel (talk · contribs), who restored it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. A 12 hour block would probably have sufficed for this IP; it's quite dynamic. I've made my opinion about the content in the page history and previously at Gamaliel's talk page.[29] I can still see no possible justification for including the content which I think widely misses the purpose of the LTA page. As I also indicated to Gamaliel, it is also clearly worthless as evidence of anything, and if accurately reported, a clear breach of copyright policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to include the email on the page is to discourage the user from sending further threatening emails to editors. If he knows that whatever threats he sends will be posted here along with his IP address, he will be less likely to send threats. Do you have the same copyright concerns WRT the "Example of a threatening email sent by Lucy" on the same page[30]? — goethean ॐ 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It was included because it is evidence of his long term stalking and harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, upon seeing his e-mail posted in front of Goddess and everyone, he didn't threaten to take it to a copyright lawyer, he threatened to go to the police. Chicago suburban police, as you may be aware, are fully equipped to handle copyright violations. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He's threatened to sue us and Wikipedia, file a complaint with the IRS, and talk to his personal friends who apparently include senators and judges. So far he's just yelled a lot. I imagine it will take a couple more years for him to finally take it to whomever will listen to him, if he can find a sane person who will listen. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of publishing the whole letter, maybe it would be appropriate to summarize, and provide a link to a version of the page that includes the text for anyone interested? That might reduce the issues here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That might reduce the issues here

How so? The issue is not page length. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing it would have been sufficient, and the full contents could have been shared with trusted admins as needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What Bugs said. He seems to have an issue with the e-mail being posted; we generally don't post e-mails on Wikipedia without permission of both parties (so to answer the question above: yes, I was surprised to see the other letter posted there) - so remove it, provide a link or give a contact where interested editors can get the full copy. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

<outdent: as an fyi, he appears to be back as 75.5.68.191 Jamesofur (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare has removed the link to the email. I'm sure our resident troll thanks all of you for your collective help in stalking, harassing, and abusing Wikipedia editors with complete and total impunity. Great job! — goethean ॐ 18:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I disagree with removing the link entirely, and would like to hear NuclearWarfare's reasoning for removing it entirely, but I certainly don't think it means anyone intends to give carte blanche to the offending party here to harass you. The LTA entry is still there, yes? Summarize, explain, and record there, don't accuse admins of enabling stalking. I highly suggest that you refactor your comment, which I find personally offensive, and I'm sure that others participating in this thread would also take offense to. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)Joehazeltonthorowaway001 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And since this latest Hazelton sock was kind enough to announce he had more socks in his edit summary, I'm filing an SPI request. Blueboy96 19:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Upload protection

I want to point attention of all administrators to the fact that a separate upload protection was enabled recently. Currently it is possible to protect a file from reupload without protecting the file page from editing. I updated WP:Protection policy. Other pages and templates need to be updated as well. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nifty. This will be more useful to the commons folks than us as local images on our main page will sill get the cascade protection which will keep the description page from being edited. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wide-ranging blocks to deal with sockpuppetry

Recently I was collaterally affected by this extremely wide rangeblock. Looking at these apparently related blocks, it seems fairly clear the intent is to deal with a single user who has been engaged in serial sockpuppetry (on top of whatever their original conduct issue was -- I haven't looked into that). Or perhaps there's more going on behind the scenes, who knows. The effect, however, is to deny anonymous editing, as well as legitimate account creation to an entire ISP, Smart Telecom. (Or if not precisely the whole ISP, then the principle range of dynamic IPs allocated to domestic customers, as far as I've been able to tell from a little poking around.) I'd happened by from 84.203.78.225, originally intending to just make some modest anon edit, where I then made a number of unblock requests, which I have to say was a somewhat frustrating experience. I attempted to address the questions -- or points of apparent confusion -- of one admin, and the request would be looked at by another.

I emailed Alison about this, but I've had no reply, and she's been active since then -- including applying another /17 rangeblock, with yet-longer duration, as it happens -- so I'm assuming she's disinclined to give it further attention. So I'm raising it here, though I'm aware of the possibility it may go nowhere for much the same reason as the unblock requests.

Firstly, should such broad blocks be applied in the first place? Removing anon-editing and account-creation from a medium-sized national ISP seems a large step, in order to deal with just one of its miscreant customers.

Secondly, if the effect of application of the {{checkuserblock}} is to make it "unreviewable" by anyone other than a checksuseruser, and people affected by such blocks have no way to even request such review, shouldn't there be some other process in place to deal with such cases? Or least, clearer wording in place to spell out that "you'd wasting your time to place an unblock request, you'll just have to request an account on the mailing list".

On a technical note, in cases like this would it perhaps desirable to be able to block account creation only? Smartiger (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok - looking into this right now. I'd rather you didn't try to link blocked accounts to this range quite so blatantly, as you have above. I generally don't do that myself as it tends to show people location data, etc. You're assuming this rangeblock is related - Allie ^❤ 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If I was a bit too explicit in my dots-joining, feel free to redact appropriately, and expunge my having dropped it into the edithistory. Smartiger (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And BTW - your email just now was the first time I'd heard any feedback on this rangeblock - I just found these requests, though - Allie ^❤ 04:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I took another look, and that editor is editing from right across that /17 netblock, both with accounts and anonymously. Right now it's just a softblock with account creation disabled. We can't just enable ACB though, while allowing anon editors edit; Mediawiki just doesn't allow us to. Behind the scenes, at Checkuser, there are surprisingly few editors on that entire range (I'm Irish myself, BTW) and those with already established accounts are still editing away unaffected. While I apologize for the inconvenience, I'm glad you were able to get an account set up. One thing that is missing is that it doesn't say in the block message that you can request an account be created for you. I think we should certainly add that. In the meantime, given the nature of the editor and his socking, and given that the block is actually up in less that two days time, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to leave it blocked for the duration. I manually went through all the IPs used in the hope that I could narrow the range down further, but I can't. I'm really sorry about that - Allie ^❤ 05:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I what are the relevant instructions to getting an account created in this situation? As you noted, they should be part of the template and I'll be happy to add them, but I don't actually know what they are in this situation. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we need to have a reference added to the {{checkuserblock}} template, linking to Wikipedia:Request an account in the event of anon blocking with ACB. You can see that {{anonblock}} has it done already, though circumstances are slightly different - Allie ^❤ 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in due course pointed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, but that was a little counterintuitive (an "unblock" list to request an account); and I think there was another link someplace, but it was a little inobvious, in terms of how deeply buried it was. (I don't think it's part of a standard template, since the link I was given had a typo in it. Or at least, if there is such a template, that's not what was used.) And I had quite a few edits under my belt in a previous life, so I can imagine others might be yet more confuseder. So yes, I think a clearer "roadmap" for rangeblocked editors in general would be good, and especially so for checkuserblocks, for the reasons I mentioned.

Presumably said ISP is allocating dynamically across the whole 15 "domestic" bits, so yes, it would seem to be all or nothing. If the sockpuppeteer was also editing anonymously then my "feature request" might be redundant here, I'll grant you. I mentioned it on the ISP's user forum, while trying to confirm the IP range in use, and one other user piped up to mention they were editing from that IP range, and were indeed unaffected as a logged-in user. Smartiger (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "speedy" in "speedy deletion"

I don't know if this is the right place to start this thread, but it gets enough attention that someone will soon correct me if it's not.

From my work on new page patrolling, I've noticed that there are some pages that are sitting in the category "candidates for speedy deletion" for a considerable length of time before they are, eventually, deleted. My concern is that if there were an attack page or some other kind of page that was greatly detrimental to WP, it could remain in situe for several hours before its removal- in which time it could easily have spread to mirror sites and being viewed by many people potentially exposing the WMF to legal liability but, frankly, more importantly, tarnishing the reputation of Wikipedia. Not being an admin myself, I cannot trawl through deleted edits to find examples and i am not aware of this occurring with any seriously detrimental pages, but unless more admins patrol C:SD, I fear we may not have to wait long before there is an example. HJMitchell You rang? 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, attack pages are deleted fairly quickly once they are tagged as such - those and copyvio are "high priority". A7, etc, can afford to be left standing for a while, and the C:SD backlog mostly comes from those. If there's ever a backlog in Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion, then that would be a concern; but I haven't seen that previously. In addition, when tagging an attack page, you are supposed to blank it, which also prevents it from being picked up by search engines. Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted, A7 is not the highest priority- it doesn't matter too much if a 13 year old has a few hours of fame and I have noticed myself that attack pages tend to be dealt with quite swiftly. However (and I know I didn't mention this above) I also have concerns over G3s (hoaxes and vandalism)- which can be damaging to the encyclopaedia, but I have seen some that I tagged myself sitting in C:SD for periods of three or four hours before deletion. My point, I suppose, is that with a few more admins checking C:SD a little more regularly, pages that can be harmful could be removed much quicker. HJMitchell You rang? 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Speedy" is subjective - it may be hours before an admin agrees that it meets the criteria and deletes it, but what is hours to the alternative of WP:PROD (7 days, if uncontested) or AfD (several lifetimes, if it gets nasty)? Sometimes, there is some slack in the system as one continents admins go to sleep/work/education and anothers are not yet up/home. Usually, though, these things progress. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Speedy" may be a misleading term; "peremptory" or "obvious" might be a tad closer to the truth. Certainly we should protect against attacks and copyvios, which take precedence, but otherwise, I have never considered "speedy" to relate solely to the response time. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it just means "the quickest process to delete an article" not "instantaneous". Given that a small fraction of admins regularly patrol CAT:CSD, if there is a truly problematic article that must be dealt with quickly, tag the article for deletion, and then drop a note here. If its a nasty attack page, or something like that, it doesn't hurt to say "I know this is supposed to sit at CAT:CSD, but it would be better if someone got this now". WP:AN and WP:ANI get a LOT more eyes, and if it MUST be deleted NOW (rather than "at the earliest convenience") then just drop a note here. --Jayron32 02:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It can actually work better than applying a CSD; occasionally, I've encountered new pages in the midst of vandalistic sprees that are undeniably attack or nonsense pages, and have deleted them without a CSD. That's what we're here for. Rodhullandemu 02:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the number of active admins has dropped off quite sharply as of late, it's not surprising we're seeing more threads like this. Moreschi (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we are in between "generations" of administrators...several current ones becoming inactive, and hopefuls like me not quite to RfA passing level. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to Illustrate my point, I tagged Fawt as a G3 (vandalism) at 2203 UTC and it sat in C:SD for over 5 and a half hours until User:Explicit deleted it at 03:43 UTC. This particular page was far from the worst I've seen, but it seems a very long time for pure vandalism to sit there. If it had been a vandal edit, rather than a creation, it would have gone in seconds. HJMitchell You rang? 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of those hoax markings are not at all obvious and require several minutes of research to confirm. Also the A7's that look slightly important may be check out by a few admins before it is deleted or declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we generically define the "speedy" part as "speedy for the admin"? It should be the responsibility of the patrol that marks it to explain what makes it a CSD candidate if it's at all ambiguous or complicated. The admin working through the actual deletions should preferably be left to no more than a few minutes confirmation with evidence on complicated cases handed out already. ...My opinion, at least. Given I spent 3 hours digging up an explanation how to why something was a ridiculously complicated hoax article last week (yes, seriously, and yes, I refused to let it go since it started as an A7 tag that I thought was notable), I left a very, very long note in a {{notice}} under the CSD note, starting with Note to admin:. We need an easy way to add comments onto CSD-marked pages or at very least a CSD equivalent to {{prod2}}, since it'd limit admin time verification of evidence instead of all-out research. That, or policy officially to put it on talk page, but if the article survives check then it's out of place, and I'd want actual confirmation from admins that it was read or I'd feel really foolish spending so much time on them.

I also agree that it's an "admin cycling" thing. From everything I ever see, application rates keep dropping and dropping as the process is more and more stressful and oppose votes come from extremely trivial manners or vague generalizations of editors-- stereotypes. Many editors who do CSD or PROD work do so instead of articles, and with a number of admins who will automatically oppose those without a lot of work on articles? Well obviously you'll get less admins doing deletions eventually. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: last calls for candidates, comments on process

This is a reminder that the nominations phase of the December 2009 elections to select new members of the Arbitration Committee, as well as the Request for Comment|Request for Comment on the conditions for the elections and the 2010 Committee, will close on November 24, in one day's time.

If you have been considering running as a candidate in this year's election to the Committee, now is the time to make the decision. It's worth noting that there are twenty-two candidates at the time of writing, six fewer than last year, and so with eight seats available the field is not as competitive as might have been expected. All editors who had made 1,000 mainspace edits by November 10, 2009, are over 18 years of age and of the age of majority in their nation of residence, and are willing to identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation are eligible to stand as candidates. You can declare your candidacy by following the instructions at the candidate statements page.

The Request for Comment on the Arbitration Committee covers the conditions for the elections and the Committee in 2010. Specific issues under debate include term lengths, number of seats, election methods, ballot transparency, the tranche system, threshold for successful candidacies and voter eligibility. If you want to participate in the discussion on any of these issues, you have less than a day to have your voice heard. For the coordinators,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Resolved

Two articles refer to same topic (in this case a suburb of Hyderabad). One of them has to be deleted. Administrator may review both these articles and delete one of them. These are Moula-Ali and Moulali. Both the articles need lot of improvement. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagged to be merged. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Request of permanent ban of two IP addresses

I am requesting the permanent ban of the following IP addresses: 192.111.152.212 and 66.219.119.129. The first IP address is the outside address for a content filter that is used by many schools in my area. The second IP address is the outside address for my school. Permanently banning these addresses from editing will stem quite a bit of vandalism and pointless editing done by the students at these schools. --Douglas Freed (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No edits from the first IP, not much from the second. No need to block at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I typed the wrong IP for the first one. The right IP is 198.111.152.212. This IP is currently blocked for a period of three months. --Douglas Freed (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: IP addresses are generally not blocked indefinitely. Please see the blocking policy for more information.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice, a template that provides incorrect information. Indef blocking IP's is not forbidden by policy, not is it technically impossible. It should be a rare exception though, for truly static, individual IP adresses with a long pattern of problematic behaviour. I have only done it once, I know that there are quite a few of these around. Remember that, also for IP's, indefinite is not the same as infinite. Fram (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The good kind of proxy editing

A Wikipedian in good standing who currently resides in a country with a not-so-free regime has asked for advice and assistance in locating a suitable proxy server so that he can edit. Direct access to this site is blocked from his country. If you have a solution to his dilemma, please email me. Durova³⁶⁹ 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova³⁶⁹ 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also consider an ipblock exemption. MER-C 08:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on article Maya civilization

If you can't see vandalism on Maya civilization then please log out, delete cookies, give google search to access this article. Also see talk page of article. How this vandalism went unnoticed for such a long time? 117.98.81.127 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Google will generally retrieve a older, cached version. I don't see any obvious vandalism. If you wish, we can further discuss on my talk page as this really doesn't require admin attention. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication has been open 3 days shy of a month. When the time is up, could an uninvolved admin please say whether there is sufficient support for the "compromise" option to go ahead with it? Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting a revision to my topic ban.

I am requesting a revision to my topic ban.

Specifically, I am asking that one of the two following things be done:

1) Please answer the seven questions below, which I had repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban, but which were never answered.

or

2) Repeal my topic ban.

I would like this request to be addressed by uninvolved editors, i.e., editors who have neither edited Presidency of Barack Obama, nor have participated in the original discussion of my proposed topic ban.

Here are my seven questions, all of which concern Presidency of Barack Obama:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the traditional gift for the 1-month mark of an indef ban? Cardboard? Paper mache? But seriously, are you really trotting out the infamous 7 questions, seen and answered in several places in the past, such as here, here, among others? Tarc (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No and No. Viridae^Talk 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, how many times have you forum-shopped these seven questions and when people do respond, you always say something like "that is not the answer to my questions"? Seriously, given your history, you deserve such a ban. It's a miracle your behaviour hasn't resulted in you being kicked out of WP altogether. I've never edited on any Obama-related article, but I agree with the other editors - you've lost the capability to make NPOV edits and you always whine when your edits have been reverted. Why can't you let it go? If you can't hack it here, go down RTV lane, it's better for all of us. One less disruptive editor to worry about. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an indef blocked Grundle for continued frivolous and disruptive editing. MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call from my POV. The argumentation continues on his talk page, I note. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good call. Based on the ongoing repetition of his argument on his talk page, this doesn't look like someone who's ready to engage meaningfully with the Wikipedia community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
• Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
• Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
• Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Is getting backlogged. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. :) Cirt (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

how to properly fork an article?

Resolved

 – Mission accomplished. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this is explained somewhere, but I don't know where. Following discussion on the talk page, I would like to fork the article Hunger into two articles, Hunger and Hunger (motivational state) -- but I'd like to do it in a way that preserves the history for both versions, and I'm not sure of the proper way to accomplish that. Shall I just do it by copy+paste and then request a history merge, or is there a more systematic approach? Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Start the new article (hunger motivational state) and in the edit summary at creation (or whenever you add content from the old article), follow the instructions at WP:SMERGE. I suspect that Hunger won't get deleted, but you can add a {{Merged-to}} notice on the hunger talk page. No need for elaborate history mergers. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer chopsticks myself. - <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:SPLIT, which outlines the recommended procedure. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the moment I tried it, I got a template copyvio warning from CorenSearchBot (which is okay), and an editor instantly turned the new article into a redirect to the old article. But I'll see if I can work it out. Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that it is resolved now. Wikipedia lives in a state of organized chaos, and as long as the organized part is a wee bit ahead, we are doing fine. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is Frank Schulenburg?

Frank Schulenburg is a very important person in Wikipedia and is developing something, codename Bookshelf. This is not secret information but reported in the Wall Street Journal Europe. How do we contact him? Does he have a username? I may consider helping with this Bookshelf project.

For those who do not know about this project, this is a quote:

Much of the task of making Wikipedia more welcoming to newcomers falls to Frank Schulenburg, the foundation's head of public outreach. An academic, he began contributing to articles about French philosophers on the German Wikipedia in 2005.

"The community has created its own language, and that is certainly a barrier to new participants," he says.

One of Mr. Schulenburg's first projects, called the "bookshelf," is an effort to gather the basic rules for contributing to Wikipedia in one place for newcomers.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See User:Frank Schulenburg on meta (same name on en.wiki, here). --auburnpilot talk 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request discussion closure

Resolved

 – EdJohnston is assisting, but any other uninvolved admin is welcome to jump in. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close discussions at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD:

• Merging during live AfD: close without a conclusion, but with reference to additional discussion immediately below at [[#Revisiting Merging during live AfD]]
• Revisiting Merging during live AfD: close according to consensus
• A deleted article has useful text, so...? and Alternate attribution: leave open

Let me know if these directions are unclear. Thanks. I read the editnotice and went to AN/I first, but my request there was archived without comment or action. Flatscan (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? The discussions are fairly long, but (in my opinion) consensus is clear. Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there was no input on this thread either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Flatscan. I see you're the editor who opened the thread at Revisiting Merging during live AfD. I think you posed the question in a properly neutral way, and your question did receive a lot of responses. You've stated (above) that consensus is now clear. If that's the case, why not draft up a 'Proposed closing summary' which is as neutral as possible, and add it below all the other discussions on that page. Then we'll see if there is a admin who can step in and give an official closing opinion. That admin might use your summary as input for his decision. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for your reply and suggestion, but I think that would not be optimal. (longer response as separate bullet below) Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better if someone more neutral drafted such a statement. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I invite User:A Nobody to also make a Proposed Closing Summary which is as neutral as possible. Let both statements be available for review by the closing admin. Make an effort to accurately summarize what was said in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay: "All good faith participants in the discussion who are here to build a paperless encyclopedia recognize that overly strict adherence to process, in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, does not trump the more important goal of our project to provide the world with a free catalogging of human knowledge. As such, consensus per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE favors (in the case of the latter) the preservation of content and its use whereever possible rather than outright deletion and (in the case of the former) exhaustive attempts being made to make use of content in as many ways possible before considering outright deletion, i.e. redlinking rather than redirecting and retaining edit history. With that said, the GFDL should not be used as an excuse to retain damaging content. Content should not be merged from a hoax, copyright violation, or libelous article during a deletion discussion to force preservation of this damaging content. In instances in which there is no overwhelming consensus to delete and the article under discussion is not a hoax, libel, or copyright violation, a merge may take place during a discussion if it benefits other articles per WP:IAR ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."). In other instances when a valid merge location is brought up in the discussion, but the numerical participation in the discussion favors deletion, a closing admin can still and should allow for the merge of the content and a redirect with edit history intact after the close. A handful of editors, usually those who nominate for deletion, frown upon just about any efforts to stop an article they nominated for deletion from being deleted, especially merging during the discussions. But it is clear that no reasonable editor would favor outright redlinking at the expense of improving other content not under consideration for deletion. A fair read of this debate may be that a majority of participants in the particular discourage merging during an AfD and would prefer that merges occur after the AfD ends, but that nothing outright forbids it occuring during the discussion with of course the exception of when it is an effort preserve legally damaging content." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

to long of statment, and this statment should be on WT:AFD not here. Ikip (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that A Nobody's statement (diff) is not an accurate summary of the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not even close. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think this should be closed by someone uninvolved who did not comment at the discussion. Seraphim♥ 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with A Nobody and Seraphim that the closer should ideally be uninvolved, which is why I brought the request here. Draft closing statements would reduce the closer's required effort – making it more likely that someone would respond – but they might encourage a simple rubber-stamping of a potentially biased statement. I believe that my evaluation is objectively correct, but there is the possibility that I am unfairly discounting arguments. Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Would it be appropriate to try {{adminhelp}} at the discussion? Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• I propose that A Nobody and I construct a list of mutually-acceptable admins to ask directly, one at a time, until the request is fulfilled. Flatscan (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to offer my own close of this discussion. (It's been going slowly). Any other uninvolved admin is welcome to jump in at this point and take over the task. When I have a draft conclusion, I will open it up for comments on whether I have properly summarized the discussion thread. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am tagging this as resolved. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC backlog

The US holidays have traditionally been a time when nominations at WP:FAC increase, as some editors are home for the holidays, while reviews decrease, as others are away for the holidays. The page is backlogged, with numerous FACs getting little feedback, particularly in the areas of prose, comprehensiveness, and verifiability (images, sources, MOS and other technical issues are well covered). A list of the FACs most in need of review is given here (transcluding that template to editor talk pages is helpful). Some general reviewing instructions are in this Signpost Dispatch. Every little bit helps, if anyone has time to review a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think seeing "All of them" at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents might be discouraging to some potential reviewers. Perhaps simply listing individual articles needing attention, without the text "All of them", would be a better way to encourage comments. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I don't think Sandy knew I had changed that. A partial list has been included there, although all of the FACs do need attention. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you, Karanacs (talk · contribs)! :) Cirt (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New CCI

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League MER-C 12:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CAT:TEMP

Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages is horribly backlogged, and has been for almost six months. Could somebody help out? --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really critical... It'll always be backlogged. Deleting these pages is basically busywork. –xeno^talk 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is even a consensus established whether or not to delete these userpages, is there? MuZemike 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been our practice for years now. I see no urgency in it though. ^Chillum 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'll ever delete a page in cat temp. It either ought to be done by a bot or not done at all. Protonk (talk)

Wait, I don't get it. What's the point of CAT:TWU? 71.255.89.120 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wasn't logged in... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, some people think its a good idea to delete the userpages and user talk pages of indefinately blocked users, perhaps as some sort of enforcement of WP:DENY. I have always found it a pointless exercise, but if some admin has the time and desire, why not. --Jayron32 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for the reply; this is definitely one of the stranger parts of the admin backlog. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of opposition against the deletion of these user talk pages. Any ideas (links) where the latest discussions were and what the outcome was? Fram (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In the past there have been bots that have done it (both approved and unapproved) but they have never lasted long. I'll see if I can dig up some links. --Chris 09:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually support being flexible on this. A lot of indeff'ed users are functionally banned - they were just purely abusive or vandalistic. But some were valued contributors at one point or were contributing constructively in some way for some time. We do not need to needlessly insult those people by erasing their existence here, even if they aren't allowed to edit now and for the forseeable future. If they ask for deletion we should give it to them - we have a couple of guidelines on that - but otherwise I encourage leaving them alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For their user pages, yes. Not for the talk pages. We don't do it for users in good standing either. Fram (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The most recent propper discussion seems to be here, this page may also be of interest. There has also been several brfas for cat:temp adminbots, the only successful one being this one. --Chris 09:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Fram (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This should not be done by bot, but with common sense. Please do not delete anything related to 'structural forms' of 'vandalism' (e.g. spam, sockpuppetry; as deletion of such pages can seriously impede researching such forms of behaviour), only the ones which are due to run of the mill vandalism. Moreover, many are mistagged (see e.g. User talk:Advancedparts&sparesltd, User talk:Advancedsolar, User talk:Adventusgroup; three examples from the first page which are related to promotional edits and hence should have been tagged with {{spamusername}}). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think {{Userspace draft}} is being abused for the sake of advertising?

I am sure this was most likely discussed but if it was then I am restarting the discussion because it is really a big issue when single-purpose accounts use this template to better increase their chances of keeping the promotional article on Wikipedia. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That template automatically includes {{NOINDEX}} thus greatly nullifying any promotional value of the page. –xeno^talk 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But still the draft can go on unnoticed for months before being nominated for deletion. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that a problem? –xeno^talk 01:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would also go unnoticed by whatever customers the spammer thinks they are attracting. In effect it is just a waste of their time, which, of course, is no concern of ours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So to sum it up, 1) the promotional userspace draft is NOT found by Google searching and 2) it is easily found by a whatlinkshere search of the template. So I would say, users who use this on their promotional drafts are both shooting themselves in the foot and making it easier for us to locate and take whatever process may be appropriate on their material. Template is thus a net benefit. –xeno^talk 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I deal with a lot of spam problems and I'm sure some abuse comes from this tag, but I don't think the amount is necessary to focus on. Userspace drafts can be MfD'd or G11'd just like other pages if editors feel that they contain inappropriate advertising, and I would encourage editors to do this if they feel a draft isn't appropriate. Xeno has a good point about noindex as well. ThemFromSpace 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, most spammers jump right in and create their spam article in article space; few seem to use their user page for this. I agree that when they do create a draft it helps to demonstrate that a) the article is spam and b) that the account is intended for spamming which supports deletion of the article and blocking the editor. As such, while spammy userspace drafts don't make Wikipedia look great, they're the lesser of two evils. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cough... Most userspace spam I come across (responsible for deletion of hundreds, if not more, spammy userpages here) doesn't have {{userspace draft}} on it. The actual problem is that, to the best extent of my knowledge, nobody systematically tags/deletes these any more. MER-C 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely is (and MER-C, I've started doing that; check my deletion log for "inappropriate use of userpage"). DS (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't {{Userspace draft}} automatically added to drafts in userspace created via the article creation wizard? In any event, if I see blatant advertising in userspace I tag for speedily deletion. We should have as little tolerance for userspace spam as we do for copyvios in userspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible unblocking needed

What the fuss is about.

I just remembered Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#Tim Kaine and related legal threat.. It appears to me that they have retracted their legal threat, User talk:Themoodyblue#November 2009, but they certainly don't seem to understand what the problem is. Can someone else take a look and see if they need unblocking. I have been awake now for 20 hours and my judgement may be faulty. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. He keeps claiming that posting the governor's signature is illegal. I don't feel like wading through his many warring edits. Does he actually cite a specific law that can be verified? His alleged call to the governor's office is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion on the Tim Kaine talk page, where this issue began, indicates that there is no violation of the law. Unless the blocked user can provide evidence, which he has not done so far, then in my opinion his legal threat remains viable and he should stay blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also added some comments to WP:ANI about this. Not sure why it needs to be covered in two different places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If he has retracted the legal threat then he should be unblocked. His beliefs don't come into it. He's free to think that it is a problem as long as he's not threatening to cause others to be taken to court. Bugs, do you have a link to where on ANI you made the comments? I can't see anything. The only places I can see this discussed is here and in the original incident notice, now archived. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read that user's talk page and the article in question. It appears he has retracted his threats unambiguously, so I don't object to an unblock on this issue. If edit warring returns when he is unblocked, we can address that later, but as it stands now, there is no longer an "active" legal threat on the board, so I think he probably could be unblocked. --Jayron32 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked and notified, Tony Fox, the blocking admin. I still think that Themoodyblue isn't quite sure of the problem but there is no longer a threat. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that. Appreciate the multiple viewpoints on this issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked an editor who was vandalising my talk page

As I'm not sure what the rights and wrongs about blocking vandals who target your user pages are, I thought that I'd post a quick note to disclose that I just blocked 124.181.90.197 (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for posting large amounts of abusive text (including a bizarre threat to sue me) on my talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandals like that are fair game for anyone, if anything I'm surprised you didn't block sooner. Also, how do you "sue the shit through someone"?--Jac16888^Talk 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is probable that the anon vandal who vandalised your talk page was the original creator of the article - User:Clapster. He hasn't edited through that account for a while, and has receieved no warnings other than the creation of the hoax article. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this could be given as a good example of admin restraint and neutrality... admin's user page is being vandalized and insists on going through the normal channels even if no one was likely to have questioned or even noticed any short page protection or block. Okay, it was a lesson for me at least on something I'd been curious about. Can I assume the "official" guidelines are to not censure anyone related to your content as an admin? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's generally considered bad form to block someone who is arguing with you either over a content dispute or over your use of the tools. However, there is arguing with you, and there is posting a massive string of abuse just because you were the admin on the rota for the CSD list/PROD list/AfDclosures who deleted their article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Forcing an admin to report a garden-variety vandal abusing their page is plain process wonkery. If it was an edit-war on a page with which the admin is involved, that's another story. –xeno^talk 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right. It has long been precedent that any admin caught in the "cross fire" by vandalism is more than in their rights to block. Pedro :  Chat  16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured as such. This being why said "official" versus just official. I'll openly admit that if I could, I'd really be tempted to do those things on any talk page spam or harassment if it was keeping me from doing what I wanted to. I've already learned to laugh off most things said at me, but I do get frustrated over the time lost trying to resolve it. ...That as precedent sounds about right and I'm thinking it didn't take too much policy bending; If an admin is dragged into an unrelated matter, just their being there could be defined as a wider community disruption. It is the admin's volunteer time being wasted, after all. Thank for the replies. One more tidbit to store away. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Xeno is correct. Vandals can be blocked on sight by any admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Xeno. Don't worry about blocking someone for vandalizing your userpage. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I didn't think that there was a requirement that I either ask another admin to block the vandal or post here after doing it myself, but thought that I'd play safe. I revert and ignore IPs who vandalise my user pages (per WP:DENY) and only block them if they come back or are committing other vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC backlog

The US holidays have traditionally been a time when nominations at WP:FAC increase, as some editors are home for the holidays, while reviews decrease, as others are away for the holidays. The page is backlogged, with numerous FACs getting little feedback, particularly in the areas of prose, comprehensiveness, and verifiability (images, sources, MOS and other technical issues are well covered). A list of the FACs most in need of review is given here (transcluding that template to editor talk pages is helpful). Some general reviewing instructions are in this Signpost Dispatch. Every little bit helps, if anyone has time to review a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for abuse filter permission

I don't know where else to put this, put I put in a request here [31] weeks ago and it has gone unanswered. Some feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Triplestop x3 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. I think it's best to hear other opinions though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions have suggested that WP:RFA is probably a better place to get the relevant opinions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections, but perhaps zzuuzz does have a good suggestion about having an RfA[dminship]. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is not what he has asked for. Majorly talk 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Majorly, but I think that the very large, very clear title of this discussion, Request for abuse filter permission, indicated the point somewhat more forcefully – shall we say, with more alacrity. It's possible that, rather than stupidly failing to read Triplestop's post as you seem to be implying, they were making a parallel suggestion that he could achieve the same ends (and more) by running for adminship; they seem, indeed, to be hinting that he might be a successful candidate. Hope that clears things up! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and added the userright, given that your request stood for three weeks at WT:EF and 24 hours here without objections. Please do be extremely careful with it and be sure to follow the best practices that have developed about the edit filter; in particular, testing filters thoroughly before setting them to take actions. You might also consult some of the more experience Edit Filter Managers before doing so. –xeno^talk 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Xeno. I will be sure to be careful. Triplestop x3 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? You gave the ability to programatically block users to an editor with less than six months history on Wikipedia? I know I'm missing something here, would anyone like to give me a hint? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW - I agree this is fast, but there are other non-admin EF users and I personally have found Triplestop to be quite an effective and accurate editor and patroller.  7  04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And his/her initial edits there (at least the visible ones) appear to be productive.  7  04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, the two ones that aren't visible were self reverted. I invite any one to review my edits. Triplestop x3 04:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I took a brief look at your edits. Your account was created 31 May 2009. Your first edits were to a WP noticeboard that would be unknown to many regular users. You started using Twinkle as soon as you were able, on 5 June 2009. After a grand total of 32 edits 115 edits, you asked for rollback. And Juliancolton actually granted it! Something isn't right here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

32 edits? Where did you get that number? And to answer your question, a very helpful editor from IRC (i believe it was Chzz, who was the one who welcomed me) told me where to get automated tools and such. Triplestop x3 06:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I must have been filtering on WP namespace edits when I counted. The actual number is 115 edits in total, with 30 in article space. I didn't pose a question, so I'm not sure to whom you were replying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am only aware of one other non-admin with editfilter permission, but they appear to have left away under a cloud after issues of sockpuppetry were raised during their RfA. Are there others? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FT2, GlassCobra and, Jakew. @Kate (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

However, FT2 and GlassCobra both were admins when granted it. Prodego ^talk 05:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate time to object to this request, Carbuncle, would have been sometime before it was granted. It stood for 3 weeks without comment at WT:EF and then 24 hours here at WP:AN without objection. –xeno^talk 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

When I became aware of the situation, I commented. There doesn't seem to be any reason that the permissions couldn't be revoked if they were granted in error or without sufficient vetting, but having looked at the user's relatively brief history here as Triplestop, I don't think there's any chance of that happening. I'm surprised they didn't just request adminship, because I think they would have passed easily. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that any non-admin can manage the AbuseFilter worse than is currently being done. No objections from me. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the most important point, of course. I have a couple of filter requests that have been sitting long enough that Triplestop's approach would have been faster. Anyone who's willing to actually work on such things is a net plus. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above two. We've had admins that have caused problems with it to the point they're nearly shut down the site, and there's a good number of other users (Triplestop included) who I'd be fine with the tool because I know they have sufficient Clue to use it. If he does screw something up, it takes about ten seconds to remove it, and the Edit Filter fortunately comes with some easy tools to undo any lasting damage. It's not a big deal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this note from the ArbCom Clerk first. And than, follow the thread. --207.102.64.68 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Are you going to allow this political partisan to look at the logs of filters like this and even allow him creating new filters? Will he be able to identify IP addresses of users using this access? Biophys (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He had created two new filters. What "vandal phrases" did he include? How come that someone without even administrative access creates scripts with content not visible for general public?Biophys (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The content may not be visible to you and I, but almost every single admin has the userright to view it. If he starts fucking around with things, then it can easily be revoked. It's not really a big deal. Additionally, you can examine diffs that trigger different filters, just not what part of the filter that they triggered. So he's not looking at anyone's IP. If an IP triggers a filter he (and you) can see it, the same as if a registered user triggers it. @Kate (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, there are two unrelated problems. First, either the source code and logs of the filters do not include any sensitive information (and then I would like to look at it) or they include some sensitive information (and then only chekusers should be looking at it and certainly not this user). You should have some clear policy here. Second, this user looks very much like a friend of PasswordUsername/AntiNationalist, based on his statements during EEML case. But even if he is a sock of AntiNationalist, that would be difficult to establish because AN operates from a wide range of IP addresses generated by a mobile device.Biophys (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason some filters are set to private is so that those who want to bypass the filters can't easily see the criteria. There is no sensitive data other than the filters themselves. –xeno^talk 14:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• facepalm* I'm a sock of Anti-N? Wow... First off, let me get something straight. The EEML participants are NOT my content opponents. The "Russian editors" or whatever you call them are NOT my content allies. If you really think I am a political partisan than find one page I have POV warred on. If you think I am a sock go ahead and checkuser my IP, or try to find any behavioral evidence whatsoever. Glad to see that there is not one single place the EEML battle ground will not spill over to. Triplestop x3 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So whose sock are you, then? :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And I invite review of any of my actions. If you look at the log of the filter I made [32], you'll see that the edits being caught are very, very abusive. Triplestop x3 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the filter, It certainly is catching some vandalism, '[[Nobody cares about Ausfailia.]]'.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ma'at

Could the page be renamed Maat as per talk page (no objections having being raised). Taam (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a no-op to me, too. Can someone who knows something about her tell us how she's usually spelt? PhGustaf (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP here seems to have some special interest in this historical figure or character or whatever it was. Mayet is given as an alternative transliteration, and Ma'at probably captures that fact better than Maat would. Maybe OP could provide some citations in support of this proposal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A friend who has a houseful of books on ancient Egypt says, "I don't want to get involved in a W hassle, but either is fine. Ma'at kinda borrows from the spelling of some Arabic words, to emphasize that there are two distinct syllables -- glottal stop, or some such." I would leave the title as is. PhGustaf (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see article talk page for further comments re the more common usage (3:1) in favour of Maat using Google scholar, I tend to follow the spelling of the scholarly sources I use, but it is no big deal either way. Taam (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not move protected. Any autoconfirmed editor can (distinct from should) move the page. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope. The Maat redirect page has multiple revisions, so an admin has to do it if it is going to be done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I verified on Google that Maat is more common in English, and made the move. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban of User:ItsLassieTime now indefinite

As there are lots of blocks and lots of deletions and a ban change involved, I am obligated to report the following here as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca.

The following administrative (non-)actions have been taken (either by User:Brandon or by myself):

• The following socks of User:ItsLassieTime have been indefinitely blocked and tagged by myself, all of which have been  Confirmed by Brandon as socks of User:Kathyrncelestewright, a sock puppet of banned user ItsLassieTime:

• User:ItsLassieTime is now indefinitely blocked (and hence permanently banned) by Brandon.
• No admin action taken on User:Sift&Winnow as there is no evidence of abusive sock puppetry despite the positive CU result.
• No admin action taken on User:LaVidaLoca on good faith per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie.
• The following pages have been deleted per G5 (created by banned user) by myself:

As with ItsLassieTime's previous SPI, these deletions are open to (community) discussion if need be. See the following relevant pages for reference and previous discussion:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks

MuZemike 06:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Khalsa Army

Hi I need your help please I created a article called Sikh Khalsa Army back in 3rd of February 2007. (You can check the article history to confirm this):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Khalsa_Army&dir=prev&action=history

The information I added here in the tables is wrong in 3rd of February 2007. I know this because I checked with MY reference books again and it was WRONG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Khalsa_Army&oldid=105304366

These tables that I added with the WRONG information are still being used in the article NOW in 2009. I tried to remove the wrong information I added BUT User:Cosmos416 reput the WRONG information back.

Please can you help me remove the Wrong information I added back in 3rd of February 2007. Any information I added in the tables and other information is wrong. Even the article name I gave is wrong, the actual name of the army was the "Army of Lahore" or the "Army of Punjab".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Khalsa_Army&oldid=105304366

Ive removed all MY wrong information added to the article back in Feb 2007 from the current article. Please can you prevent silly users User:Cosmos416 from revert or reputting my wrong infromation back into the wikipedia artcie.

Best regards,

--Sikh historian (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, if a move is contested, as it is in this case, you should file a move request. See the instructions at WP:RM. I see you've moved the article again and suggest you do that (file a formal move request, I mean) if the article is moved back. Getting into a move war is a bad idea. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Something very important to say up-front: You may have created the article, but you do not own it.

Can I ask what exactly you're reporting and why? It seems you've already-- without any discussion-- moved the article and changed everything above you said was a problem. Um, well, I suppose I'm wondering why you'd post for administrator attention when you've acted somewhat dubiously on your own. Major changes like renaming or move must be discussed and consensus reached on it first, and you're somewhat lucky this wasn't picked up by patrols while you did it. You've also removed the statistics that were neatly arranged with text with far less detail; Why not use those tables and then add your information to them so the appearance stays better? That leads to the matter of citations and resources, and since you only have a citation about the artillery, there was no reason to change everything else. Please read Wikipedia general policy on what appropriate to use as a source, and that numerical statistics always need citation. I'm asking you to, please, be extremely careful if you change this article any further. No one wants a full-blown argument over something that should be verified by reliable sources. Those alone should solve a lot of this. But still, moving it without consensus and "vandalizing" (would be seen by many that way, but not my word) isn't going to earn you many friends or keep administrators away. You cannot just remove things from the article and replace with your own because you "think" or "know" you're right.

Your enthusiasm is a great thing for an editor here, but respecting the work of others in the community comes first over any one person's agenda. If you have the "right" numbers, back them up ASAP or absolutely anyone would be in their right to revert the article. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the correct figures, add them, but say where you got the info from. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm fairly busy person with lot of things to do in my daily time so I don’t have a lot time available. I'm hardly on wikipedia. It fairly simple someone (me) added in wrong info back 2 years ago and it was still being used in the article. Just try to keep it out of wikipedia if you want it to be accurate. To User:Datheisen you must get one thing straight do NOT assume you know me and trying to read more into sentences that a user spent 60 seconds writing, out of the persons busy hectic life is stupid - don't read to much into things. I never said I owned the article you assumed it, which is pretty arrogant I think. I was just highlighting the point the wrong info removed from the article is from me and it is not from anyone else. Please do yourself a favour and don't read too much into hurriedly written response, its arrogant and it does not Assume good faith. I've wasted enough time on this, include my wrong info, don't include the wrong info - it’s your encyclopaedia. P.S. this is my last response on the matter as I've got better things to be doing than wasting time here. Keep well.--Sikh historian (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing content

From Chris Woodrick: "He seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." What should be done about this? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Report this to WP:ANI. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll do it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB permission requests backlog

On WT:AWB/CP, are currently 3 unreviewed requests (among them mine). The oldest of them is more that two days old. Could some admin, please, look at them? Thanks. Svick (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:The Earwig. Thanks. Svick (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New CCI

Just an FYI that a new Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation has been opened. Skier Dude (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Is there an easier way to add the references in the page as opposed to at the bottom. The referencing code when I looked is complicated. MoodFreak (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The way to add references is to add the specific reference in article between a <ref> tag and </ref> tag. Then add {{reflist}} at the bottom and it will format all of your references for you. See Help:Footnotes for more information. TNXMan 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Live-merging RfC about to be closed

I responded to a request at this noticeboard for an uninvolved admin to close the WP:RFC about live merges that was opened at WT:Articles for deletion on 16 October. My draft closure is being offered for review here on my talk page. Please comment there, if you have an opinion on whether the discussion is correctly summarized. The draft result is that the existing language at WP:Guide to deletion that advises against merging content from an article while an AfD is still running is affirmed. Participants support the view that an editor should wait until the AfD is closed before doing the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Finding single-IP blocks in a larger IP range

I'd like to be able to search the block log for all the blocks placed within a certain IP range. (I asked this first at VPT, but haven't heard anything for a couple of days.) In other words, I'd give the tool 192.168.0.0/16 (say) and it would would return a list of blocks placed on all the single IPs within that range (192.168.5.23 was blocked for 24 hours on 1 April 2001...). Do any tools exist that will return that information? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None exist at this point in time but Im working on one since you brought it up. I should have it up within the next 72 hours. β^_command 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its up but in beta testing, If anyone wants a link just email me. I hopefully will have it public within the next few days just need to get some more feed back. β^_command 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive sockfarm - edits probably need checking

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20091130144730&limit=86&user=J.delanoy.

These are all socks of Tinpac (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). His editing interests seem to go in spurts. He was originally caught because of his edits in climate-related articles, but I also see many edits to articles dealing with race, US states, the armed forces of some Commonwealth countries, and even political philosophy. If some people could look over some of the accounts' edits, that would be nice. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive might also be worth a look, as there are some more there as well. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any checkusers handy?

NOTE: I have moved this duscussion in its entirety to a new section at the village pump so that it may continue. We're getting some good ideas and making some progress here. [33] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I just didn't think it really belonged here. Thanks for taking the initiative. --Jayron32 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Checkuser has been run, all has been taken care of. Changes to checkuser policy or proposals for improving process can be handled elsewhere --Jayron32 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If so, can one take a look at this SPI case? Its been open for over 4 days at this point: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Thanks! --Jayron32 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to comment about SPI here. We really could use some more dedicated Checkusers, clerks and people in general to handle SPI-related stuff. Some of the cases have been there quite some time as noted by Jayron. The one I filed has been checked but has been in a holding pattern with the checkuser saying he wanted to get a second opinion and nothing more since for about a day and a half. I'm not criticizing current checkusers or anyone who has more pressing real life to deal with but we could use some more folks with the necessary tools who will agree to regularly patrol SPI. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when the arbcom decide to take a firm line with the likes of WmC and Raul, stuff they were doing (AN3 & Scibaby) get backlogged and we get bogged down in delays. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be so dependent on a few souls to do this kind of work. :-/ Is there some way we can recruit other experienced sysops and/or regular editors to learn the checkuser tools and deal with SPI reports? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom limit the number of checkusers, and there has to be a community bitchfest vote to approve a new checkuser.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems awfully counterproductive. The current number is clearly not adequate, even when dealing with the three or four people (Scibaby, Gra**, Bambifan101, etc.) who give them the most work. I don't have time right now (and I'm not really sure how to go about it) but if someone wants to draft a RfC I'd love to participate and help present a case for opening up spaces for more checkuser personnel. We really need more of everything... more Checkusers, more sysops, more NPPers, etc. Might as well start somewhere. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

While there appears there might be a Checkuser flag going spare, this is a time where such appointments - which are via the ArbCom - are a little problematic. The ArbCom elections are about to start, with some Arbs preparing to leave office and there being an incipient change of guard, that such decisions are likely going to be held over until the results are in and results declared. Since Arbs are offered CheckUser status, so to be able to review other CU's work, as part of their role - and the fact they might become active in using it, then the requirement for CU's is not known until into the New Year. Plus, the new ArbCom may come to a new consideration on whether CU's should be increased. Lastly, CU is one of the more technical flags, having to be able to understand the results, and combined with the discretionary requirements means that the pool to draw from is pretty limited. I suggest that you pop over to the WP:CU page and look over those editors with permissions and see if they are busy (the two I am familiar with certainly are), and make a direct request to look over some outstanding tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a while before anything happens, true. Still, it couldn't hurt to have more people with the tools... I have some thoughts for the evolution of Wikipedia that involves the checkuser topic, plus the issue of losing editors both new and old and failing to attract more newbies... I need time to formulate it all but I'll possibly look into starting some kind of central discussion, whether at RfC or Village Pump about "the future" and see if I can't stir people into thinking about how we're going to continue to grow and operate, how we can improve, etc. Even if everyone just tells me to stuff it where the sun don't shine, maybe some good ideas would come out of it. :-) Thanks for your suggestions. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not primarily that we do not have enough checkusers. The problem is that approximately five people are doing all of the checks at SPI, and two of them don't do very many. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to write out a long post about how desperate we clerks are at SPI, but J.delanoy summarized it quite well. So...what J.delanoy said. NW (Talk) 23:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So... the solution is to coax the existing checkusers into doing their "fair share" of work? As this is all volunteer work, I'd say the solution is to enlist more checkusers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanthalas39 (talk • contribs)

That's far too sensible. You can expect a formal reprimand soon. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the rules governing who can have Checkuser tools are strict and the number is currently limited, maybe people who do not use their Checkuser tools should have them removed so someone else can? (This is not a criticism of anyone in particular, just a practical consideration. What good does it do to give someone tools if they don't use em to the communitiy's benefit?) <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a matter of a "zero sum" of checkusers; removing checkuser access from users not using it doesn't "free up" anything. The deal is that checkusers have access to highly sensitive and technical information, that means that they need to be users of the highest possible moral standing at Wikipedia AND that they are users who have the technical expertise to interpret and make judgements of the results of the checkuser tool. The problem isn't that there are only a limited number of slots availible for checkusers, its that there aren't enough suitibly acceptable users to give the checkuser tool too. --Jayron32 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, also, checkuser doesn't seem like the most rewarding work. Burnout is a problem at pretty much every level on Wikipedia, and the most active and helpful checkusers seem the most vulnerable to burnout. Since we generate new checkusers at a very slow rate, if at all, periods like this are probably inevitable. More checkusers would be nice, but I can't think of many suitable candidates off the top of my head, nor is there any real mechanism for getting people appointed other than asking ArbCom (which, in election season, is a non-starter). MastCell ^Talk 07:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there certainly ought to be a limited number of CheckUsers. I understand you may have just been noting that there are not a finite number of CheckUser flags to hand out, but based on the complaints above, calling simply simply more CheckUsers, I think I should point this out. While it can be a pain to have to wait a few days for a response, it is a much better problem to have too few CheckUsers than too many. Too few only means that we have to wait around; too many means that there are people with access to private data unnecessarily. I think that the current situation is that we have both too many CheckUsers and too few active CheckUsers. If this means greatly restricting the current inactivity policy, pruning the access list quite a bit, and adding new blood, I would be quite happy. However, I would prefer the status quo to just seeing more CheckUsers appointed without any pruning at all. Dominic·t 09:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Arbs have CU flags, and there are a number retiring (not seeking re-election) from the Committee this year. Perhaps they can be persuaded to request retaining them and getting involved in CU work? Again, this will be in the New Year when all the carry over cases end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Y'know, it's rather tempting to be hire professionals to do this one for us. What need is there for CUs to be Wikipedians? All they really need to be is technical experts who can evaluate IP patterns. The role of CU clerk could be expanded to evaluate whether the request complied with the checkuser policy, and evaluation of editing patterns is done by sysops/whoevever anyway. With paid CUs we could be assured of regular service and quick-solving of bread-and-butter sockparties like Scibaby/Jacob Peters etc. I guess they'd need to be extended the legal protection of WMF in the event of lawsuits, but then again, as they'd be external to community wikipolitics, I think they'd be running far fewer ethically dubious checks in the first place. Obviously we'd still need a couple of people who are both technical experts and regular editors for extraordinarily complex cases like Poethorde, but probably not all that many. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Apropos of nothing, I am minded to think that this 'checkuser woo woo privacy' thing is one of the Wikipedia Urban legends. All social network software captures the IP address of posts - Wikimedia foundation is unusual in that this information is not retained indefinitely or made visible to other users. If you use LiveJournal with the IP option switched on, it captures the information for the journal owner and stores it as far as I can see forever. Ditto with Survey Monkey - if I chose to capture the IP addresses of people who take my surveys I would effectively have that info for ever and I could theoretically share it with anyone. WHOIS lookup and geolocation are available to anyone. I presume the clever part of the checkuser tool is that it allows the user to display edits from several locations side by side and matched for time, so they can tell when accounts are active. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The harm in not having enough checkusers is that people are discourage from filing WP:SPI reports and they just quit instead of going through all the slow motion bureaucracy. Meanwhile, bad actors are incentivized to create socks because they can have a lot of fun before a CU catches up with them, or we end up with admins placing dodgy blocks because they didn't have the patience to wait for CU. I agree that we need more. Enough CUs should be appointed so that there is no backlog at WP:SPI. If there are people with the CU flag who don't use it very much, then it should be removed, per Dominic's concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

NOTE: I have moved this duscussion in its entirety to a new section at the village pump so that it may continue. We're getting some good ideas and making some progress here. [34] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit requested at protected page

As discussed here, I've requested an edit to conform to WP policy.

The unsourced sentence in question:

The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence.

The article is Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

If I'm supposed to use some template to make a formal request, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply add "{{editprotected}}" above the section. –xeno^talk 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --SPhilbrickT 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ketabtoon

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) keeps removing sourced material from the articles Kabul Province and Bagrami District. The information he is deleting is taken from the website of the Naval Postgraduate School. Ketabtoon, however, claims that the information is "weak", while - as in previous cases - he actually rejects the message, i.e. that the Pashtuns (his own tribe) are not considered a majority in those sources. So far, he has removed the sourced material 3 times from each article. Admin help is needed. Tajik (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that NPS is not the only organization with their estimates. There are tens of other organizations or books who have their own estimates about the demographics and population of Afghanistan. The reason why NPS was chosen by user Inuit18 and user Tajik is because it claims that those specific districts have a Tajik majority (of course both of the users are ethnic Tajiks). However, I will doubt that they will find any other source which will support their and NPS' claim. In this case, estimates/information (it is not an estimate but a color coded map) provided by NPS are nothing but a minority view and according to WP:Undue weight, it should not even be included. Wikipedia states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.". If NPS is the only source which claims that Mussahi District, Bagrami District or Khaki Jabbar District have a Tajik majority than that is a minority view.

The second and the most important point is that why include estimates of a small organization (and NPS is not the only organization with estimates) when there are official estimates available. By official estimates, I mean estimates provided by the government of Afghanistan (Central Statistics Office) and the United Nations. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Another major problem with the Tribal maps provided by the NPS. If you guys haven't noticed, it clearly writes "Kabul Province Tribal Map" & "Predominant Tribes by districts". Tribal Map, is not even a proper ethnographic map of the districts. These tribal maps are drawn to show which tribe dominates a district. While they have divided Pashtuns in tens of different tribes, they have put all Tajiks under one name. Now obviously there are more Tajiks in some of these districts compare to Wardak or Ghilzai Pashtuns. Wardak and Ghilzai Pashtuns are not the only Pashtun tribes living in these districts, but there are tens of other tribes as well. There are tribal maps for few other provinces as well; Helmand, Farah, Kandahar, Laghman. For example lets look at Laghman Province's tribal map. They have labeled the following tribal groups "Ashkunu, Spin Nasir Khel, Safi Pashtun, Pashtun, Sulaiman Khel, Tajik, Kata Nuristani". In that list they have color codes for Pashtun and Tajik ethnic groups, however, they have separate color codes for Spin Nasir Khel, Safi and Sulaimankhel Pashtuns. All these 3 tribes are Pashtuns as well.

These are not ethnic but more like tribal maps. The worst part is that any one can interpret them in any way they want. (Ketabtoon (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

NPS did not make this map. they made this map using different sources and they did use AIMS and a source from the US State department. You are clearly using a subjective argument and you have been changing the articles based on your POV. you use NPS for one article and then remove it in another article clearly shows your bias.--Inuit18 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open

Voting is now open in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. In accordance with the recent Request for Comment on the election process, voting will be done by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. Voting will close on 14 December 2009 at 23:59 UTC.

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting should be done in a single sitting. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote). Your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you may leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on Freenode.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple alternate accounts

Is there a limit on the number of alternate accounts that one editor may use at a time? I am aware of an editor using four different accounts within the past month, sometimes editing the same article as their main account (although, to be clear, not in the one month timeframe). The accounts are not identified as alternate accounts of the main user account. There has been previous discussion with the user about using unidentified multiple accounts, but they have thus far continued and even created new accounts. I would prefer not to start a sockpuppetry case as this is a fairly well-known editor, but I am troubled by their actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is only one situation I can think of where a user would need an undeclared alternate account, and that's for privacy concerns (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT). Otherwise, any alternate accounts used should be marked; that goes for bots, doppelgängers, and any others (such as "public computer" accounts). If a user has been using four different accounts at once, they have not declared it, and are editing the same articles in certain cases, it should most certainly be reported. Unless I'm missing something... — The Earwig @ 20:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The key question is, are they attempting to avoid scrutiny or create the false appearance of greater support for something than there really is? ^Chillum 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me to be an attempt to avoid scrutiny, but I have no way of confirming this belief. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you should probably open a WP:SPI. (Or email ArbCom or a CheckUser if it's very sensitive.) — The Earwig @ 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone. Because of the behavioural evidence, I don't think a checkuser is required, but it may be useful to determine if there are other accounts. Note that this pattern of using multiple alternate accounts is replicated on other language wikis. Thanks for the advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can anyone say what it means to "avoid scrutiny"? The phrase is actually defined in the policy, but not really in a way that means to "avoid scrutiny," in that it turns out it's only a certain kind of scrutiny you can't avoid. I think "avoiding scrutiny" in this case is actually being used as shorthand for COI, which should really be a separate issue. Then there's the fact that these socks kind of invited scrutiny, rather than the opposite -- which was really the problem. If this editor had just been trying to avoid scrutiny, and hadn't been pushing his stuff, actually I don't think anyone would have come down on him. (Yes, I think the policy should make that phrase clearer....) Mackan79 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

← Given the comment by Dekimasu on the SPI case, I felt there was a valid checkuser case to be taken & have posted the results on the SPI case - Allie ^❤ 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion on a block of the David Shankbone account has been started at the linked section of AN. The SPI case is closed, and further comments should probably be directed there. Nathan ^T 02:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC needs uninvolved to close

Wikipedia_talk:User_categories#Guideline_status was an RFC started months ago that was never properly closed. My interpretation is that nobody but the author(s) supported it and it should be marked with {{failed}}. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a general talk page discussion than an Rfc at present. The tag was removed in October. I think that it would be fine to leave the page as-is. --Xdamr^talk 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it looks like talk page discussion, the RFC tag gets removed when it expires but nobody followed up to act on the result. It was an RFC about whether the main page had ever attained guideline status. It was written with the guideline header without ever being discussed or proposed as a guideline. None of the responses (except the authors) endorsed the view that it was a current guideline. That's why the guideline header needs to be replaced with {{failed}} SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, get you completely now. Don't know what I was thinking before - clearly in some sort of state of bizarre confusion. (Old age and dissipation catching up with me I suppose...) --Xdamr^talk 13:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be relisted, just like an AFD, to attract more discussion. I don't think there is enough discussion at that talk page to do anything based upon it. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've taken a look at the discussion. Frankly there looks to be too limited participation to draw any definite conclusion. I know, from my own experience at Cfd, that this guideline appears to enjoy a significant degree of support. I've taken a look through the WT:CFD archives, but I don't see any publicity re. the Rfc. Perhaps greater input would be useful to the debate. I've left a notification, but in the meantime I don't see too great a drama in letting this remain open for a little while more (though I agree it has been open a long, long time...).

Xdamr^talk 13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam, this page was created with the guideline tag. This page never went through the guideline proposal discussions. I jump-started the RfC process and a lack of participation is just more evidence that this should not be promoted to guideline status out of process. Those who promote that this page should be a guideline can continue to try and gather support but the lack of showing of evidence for this means it defaults to not being a guideline. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is much in what you say. Be that as it may though, this 'guideline' gets a regular airing in user category discussions, therefore I think we can say it has a de facto acceptance from a number of editors, even if, de jure, things are less clear. Give it another week or so for the input from WT:CFD and we can see where things go from there. --Xdamr^talk 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

STC, as I've indicated more than once before: this page started with the guideline tag because its original text was moved from an existing guideline that everyone agreed had become much too long and off-topic. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to Oversight policy

The old criterion #2 for oversight that allowed removal of defamation if it was "upon request", has been modified at Meta. The criteria for removal stay the same but there is no requirement in the policy for a formal prior request.

This reflects best practice for many years and across many wikis, where oversightable material is removed on sight, not merely when the subject asks (if they do) a long time later. The proposal was passed without dissent, checked with WMF, the global policy changed, and the local policy updated to match.

There is no practical effect of this, for this project, because it hasn't been a norm to hold back oversighting on this wiki until a formal request is made.

Discussion and consensus at Meta: [35]

Policy change: [36]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems non-controversial and representative of our existing practices. ^Chillum 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Could someone please correct the points in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 1, 2009? Hamilton, as User:Ofstab rightly pointed out, should be three (not seven) points ahead of Räikkönen and four (not eight) ahead of Massa. Clearly I was paying attention to F1 in school, not maths. Apterygial 10:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Monkey seems to have fixed it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone good with long-term abuse reports?

I'm looking for someone with technical skill and the ability to get the point through to the folks who handle RoadRunner's abuse reports. I've got a long-term issue that needs solving, if only to make the annoyance go away, but my attempts to get the point across to the contacts was rebuffed because they apparently couldn't understand diffs.

If you're good at long-term abuse work, please ping me at my talk page or by e-mail. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

David Shankbone has conceded to his own block, and is not contesting it. There is a sizable number of users who feel the block is appropriate. Nothing further to do or see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David Shankbone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Hello all. Today, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone was opened, and Alison (talk · contribs) confirmed several sockpuppets. Evidence of abuse with these accounts is highlighted in the sockpuppet investigation itself. I deliberately did not block the master account, with the rationale that discussion here may be more appropriate before blocking the account. In my personal opinion, this is grounds for an indefinite block, but the wider consultation of other administrators is requested before any action is taken. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Multiple_alternate_accounts above.  Skomorokh  03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Superficially it would seem that a block of some length is warranted, perhaps not an indefinite block, though. I'd like to see what David has to say about the matter. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This is what I am thinking as well. LadyofShalott 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I would like to first hear David explain himself. Short of some amazing testimony showing us how this is all a misunderstanding, I think a block of at least a week is needed. I don't think longer than a month would be helpful as this user is a valued content contributor. Something is however needed to show the seriousness of this sort of breach of trust. If sock puppetry continues in the future a much longer or indefinite block would be justified. Chillum 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) An indefinite block is inadvisable, since it removes any incentive for David Shankbone to refrain from further socking, by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction. Instead, I support a blocking him for one year, which should prove an adequate length to convey the unacceptability of his misconduct, while preserving the opportunity for an eventual return, provided good behavior is demonstrated. Andrea105 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I think depriving ourselves of his contributions for a full year would be excessive. We want to impress upon him the seriousness of the matter, a year seems like overkill. Chillum 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) On the converse, only a month for running numerous sockpuppets in a grudge-fest running on and off-Wikipedia and especially trying to squelch discussions involving him (the edit that Alison states in the SPI Close is blatant) seems light. I'd be willing to support anything in the range of six months to a year. SirFozzie (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) C'mon, you're all claiming he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Let's not kid ourselves. Grsz11 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I just re-read this whole section Grsz11, nobody has said that. Chillum 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Consider Special:Contributions/David_Shankbone. Since he's recently been voluntarily absent for nearly two weeks (at least on his main account), a one week block might hardly even be noticed. If blocking Shankbone is to have any corrective effect, then we need to make it hurt. Exactly what period of time is necessary to accomplish this may still be an open question... Andrea105 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Impress upon him the seriousness". He knows the seriousness, and chose to go ahead anyway. Grsz11 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The purpose of that statement was to shine a light on the seriousness of the abuse, not to diminish it. Chillum 03:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No one gets a license to violate policies. Would be glad to assign an indefinite block per the standard offer: six consecutive months without socking, a promise not to repeat the behavior, and no extraordinary problems in the meantime. Durova371 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This edit alone is enough to warrant a full ban. There's no reason at all to suppose that DS would come back in a week, a month, or a year and become an angel. Chillum, no one said that but it's the effect that some editors are presenting - "he's a good editor other than the massive sockfarm he was running, let's just block him for a little bit and hope he sees the error of his ways." Pfft. Tan | 39 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I lack perspective. 1 month does not seem like a little block to me. 1 year to me says we are likely never going to see this person again, but if that is what the community wants then so be it. I could support the Wikipedia:Standard offer as it seems to have the goal of eventually re-integrating the contributor. Chillum 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lets lay this all out. We have an editor who has been using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. Specifically, those sockpuppets were used to talk about that editor in the third person, to insult and belittle a fellow volunteer, and to edit pages to include or otherwise situate photos created by the editor, while appearing as a third person. In one spectacular instance of poor thinking, this editor also created the account "Fat Jenny" with a picture of a total unknown stranger on the user page. Does this sound like someone we want around, ever? I'm blocking him for six months, and ask the community to consider a full ban.--Tznkai (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I would support a Wikipedia:Standard offer-type deal. This is a shame, and I do not support such sanctions with a light heart; David has been a steady and strong contributor to Wikipedia, especially with regards to his photography; though his tenure has not been without its high drama. This sort of abusive sockpuppetry beyond the pale, however, and we should take care that, while our leash for dramamongering may be long, outright abuse of Wikipedia rules should generally not be tolerated. No one is invaluable to the project, as those of us who lived through the Betacommand fiasco will remember, being highly useful does not excuse behavior of this type. I think Durova's proposal of indefinate ban to be reviewed in 6 months is the best way to handle this. --Jayron32 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c)Further thought. Wikipedia is an attempt to create a serious reference work. To that end we rely on community consensus as a metric of articles should say, what policies should function. Abusing multiple accounts seriously hinders that metric, hinders the project. David Shankbone's behavior here suggests that he is not both willing and capable of collaboratively building the encyclopedia with the rest of us.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with Jayron that the ban proposal should be reviewed after the block has come to a conclusion. Chillum 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Durova371 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm willing to postpone any ban discussion for six months (the duration of the block), with the following caveat.. if he is caught socking again, I'd consider that reason to pickup any ban discussion at that point. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) When people do these kinds of things, we have to try to strike a balance: we want to prevent recurring problems, but we also don't want to lose someone's productive abilities as a contributor—contributors aren't expendable, and David has certainly done some good work. I'd suggest a block of two weeks to a month, with a requirement that he must strictly stick to (uncontroversial) article work for a few months after the expiration of the block. However, I agree that the problems are very serious, and a six month block is certainly not unreasonable. Everyking (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I thought we were waiting for him to comment. Yet everyone keeps weighing in with their 2 cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I think it was meant they would wait to block until he responded. Grsz11 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Looks like he's already been blocked 6 months. I would have liked to have heard from him, but c'est la vie. I suppose he can post on his user talk page and we can discuss him on our own. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c)I'm not particularly willing to deal with socking editors, however high the quality of their work is, if they sock to avoid scrutiny, especially when dealing with articles. If this was, (say) a newspaper, and David Shankbone churned out good work for articles he writes and occasionally disrupts meetings with bouts of childish insults and Bob Dole impressions, it'd be a different sort of problem. This is more like someone publishing a journal article, and then peer reviewing it himself. Quality means nothing with that kind of deception. The socking doesn't just have to go away, we need some sort of signal that the entire sort of thinking has changed, or at least been leashed.--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That's reasonable. I can support six months, but if David is willing to make some promises to the community, I think we should consider reducing the severity. Everyking (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Argh, I'm so disappointed. I've met Shankbone, and he seems like a really nice guy. He's also undoubtedly a huge contributor to Wikipedia. However, socking in this manner is something that is clearly not tolerable. So, unless he has some sort of explanation, I must reluctantly endorse this block, and the Standard Offer. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c)Others were willing to wait, despite the user being listed as on vacation. I saw no need.--Tznkai (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I would support a standard-offer type deal. The longest-lived checkuser-confirmed account (of seven alternate accounts) has been editing since late August, for three months. A Knavish Bonded (talk · contribs), who seems likely to be another alternate based on his edits, started editing in February 2008. That's more than a year and a half of abusing the community's trust. I hope that in six months he'll be in a better place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC) A request for diffs showing clear violations of SOCK Can someone point me to clear violations of the SOCK policy with diffs? I've had a quick look and can't see any, but it's a lot to look through. SlimVirgin 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC) From [37]: [38] --NE2 04:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) He used multiple accounts to edit war to keep David Shankbone-uploaded images in articles where other editors had removed them, see comments here especially diffs already provided by several editors, including Dekimasu. Each of these accounts worked to collude to generate the illusion of support for maintaining articles in David Shankbone's preferred version, usually with regards to giving his images prominent placement. That seems a definite violation of community trust, and an eggregious violation of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Could we please give the accused a chance to reply. We should not assume anything. Let's hear what he has to say first, and then calmly discuss the options. Jehochman Talk 04:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) He's replied. I'm not impressed: starting out a response with a broadside against the CU doesn't indicate that he gets it at all.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Tznkai, could you please post the diffs here that are clear violations of SOCK so that we can see exactly which posts triggered your block? SlimVirgin 04:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) NE2 has posted one diff from October 31. [39] Can someone post the others? SlimVirgin 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Aside: I removed the File:Childhood_Obesity.JPG image from User talk:Fat Jenny foto fixer. If anyone believes the image belongs there, just revert. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Support 6 month block. Clear abuse. ViridaeTalk 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Can you supply the diffs, Viridae? Lots of people are posting about abuse without details. SlimVirgin 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) here is a start. There are numerous diffs, especially those provided by Dekimasu, which show the alleged behavior clearly occuring. --Jayron32 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of that page, but I'm not seeing the violations of SOCK. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but can someone please post the diffs here? For a six-month block, there should be multiple diffs showing unambiguous violations of the policy, and that's what I'm not seeing. SlimVirgin 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The SPI archiving process is pretty annoying, seeing how there's no link on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed to the archive. --NE2 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I complained at Template_talk:SPIarchive_notice about this, looks like a technical glitch. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I solved that problem, now you can see the links. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) What he said. ViridaeTalk 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This contribs list shows the same behavior. Its a short contribs list, as this account only made 5 edits, but as recently as 4 weeks ago he was using sock accounts to show illusory support for keeping his own images prominent in articles. --Jayron32 04:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Which diffs are violations of SOCK and how are they violations? SlimVirgin 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Every edit by Fat Jenny foto fixer is to an article previously edited by David Shankbone, and the connection between the two accounts was never made overt. This is a direct violation of WP:SOCK, which states under Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts that "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." and "Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." --Jayron32 04:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) yet another throwaway sock doing the same as above. --Jayron32 04:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Bear in mind that he had stopped editing with User:David Shankbone on or around October 30. That account was created after that. Are you arguing that any account not called "David Shankbone" that edits material related to his work—even when it's obvious it's him and even after he stopped using the Shankbone account—is a violation of SOCK? SlimVirgin 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c-riffic)Here are some concerning edits: this was badhanding and these were avoiding scrutiny and questionable otherwise. The implied justification appears to be the lack of a commission of falsified identity, merely an omission of owning up to it. That's too cute by half as far as I'm concerned.--Tznkai (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) this account was active since 2007, and used to edit articles and subjects also edited by David Shankbone, and yet no attempt was ever made to disclose the connection, see [40] where WatchingWhales and David Shankbone make interlaced edits as he switches between the two accounts, creating the illusion of more than one person working on the article. --Jayron32 04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Could I ask that people stop posting to contribution histories? We need actual diffs of violations. NE2 and Tznkai posted this one from October, which is arguably a violation. Are there any other clear diffs? WatchingWales was known to be David, by the way. SlimVirgin 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) By whom? Article histories are useful in showing that both Shankbone and the undisclosed accounts edited the same article. And if WatchingWales was known to be David, now you're going to have to provide a diff. I see no evidence of that myself... --Jayron32 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Watching Wales has been discussed as David many times on and offwiki. I wouldn't know how to find diffs. It's obvious it's him if you look at its edits anyway. For a six month block, we'd need clear evidence of SOCK violations, as judged by entirely uninvolved admins who couldn't care less about David one way or the other. I'm not seeing that evidence here. I keep asking for diffs and so far only one has been provided. SlimVirgin 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (EC with everything below) Are you calling me involved? Where have I ever once been involved with David on anything? I have never edited any article he has been involved with, never been involved in policy conflicts with him? Seriously, the use of multiple accounts to "split your editing history [so that] other editors cannot detect patterns in ... contributions" is a blatant SOCK violation, and we have evidence that he has been creating new accounts quite frequently to do so. Even if we grant that WatchingWales and the Knavish, both from 2 years ago, were long since disclosed, what about all of the recent throwaway socks used to edit articles that Shankbone edited or put his photos in articles? We can't peer through the internet to see who is typing on the other side, even if in hindsight we can say oh yeah, this looks like David Shankbone, it doesn't mean that he isn't violating WP:SOCK. Lots of users are blocked merely because their undisclosed sock accounts are WP:DUCK-level obvious, but somehow David is exempted from disclosing his sockpuppet accounts because he's easy to recognize?!? --Jayron32 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Here you go, SlimVirgin: David argues in favour of his own photo, then uses an undisclosed alternative account to insert it twice.[41][42][43][44][45] Hesperian 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Hesperian. These are from 2007 and 2008. The last two edits show A Knavish Bonded adding David's photographs to Chihauhau. First, are we blocking him for six months for two edits made 18 months ago? Secondly, were these really SOCK violations? It was obvious that Knavish was him. It's an anagram of his name, I believe. It edited PETA, Chihauhau, David's images, and some porn articles, all David's areas. Was this a SOCK or an alternate account? SlimVirgin 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) All very interesting questions, for which I have no answers. My gut feeling is that this is not a particularly serious infraction; and, as you say, this particular incident is stale; yet I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this was all entirely innocent and David's conscience wasn't nagging at him while he was doing it. Hesperian 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'll copy the exact comment you were previously directed to: It seems to me like it would be best to get this out of the way by processing it once, so although I don't have any strong opinion on this, I looked through some contributions to see if there's anything here. If the accounts are controlled by David Shankbone, edits like this or this or this (from different accounts listed here), which displace images in favor of those created by David Shankbone himself, could be construed as violations of WP:SOCK in that they "create an illusion of support." It is not unreasonable to assume that there would be different reactions to (a) User:David Shankbone replacing article images with his own, and (b) an uninvolved user replacing article images with those uploaded by User:David Shankbone because that uninvolved user thinks the image is better or "spices up the section". Also see, for example, Talk:Chihuahua (dog)/Archive 1, where David Shankbone argues extensively for a dog photo he has taken. When the photo was replaced, one of these accounts (User:A Knavish Bonded) repeatedly readded the photo, citing agreement with talk page discussions: "Nobody wants this dog photo. You have been told your talk page, and it has been discussed on the Talk page.", "Sorry, changing lead photo should be discussed on the Talk page, as it has been contentious." Another example I found: image of Palestinian boy with toy gun added by David Shankbone, removed by another user, citing "image neutrality", readded by A Knavish Bonded, with the edit summary "restore image". Especially since they are editing some of the same pages, they should at the very least have been disclosed as alternate accounts. (One of these accounts has already been acknowledged as an alterate account on its talk page, but that one doesn't appear to have a tag either.) Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) --NE2 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) Jayron, here's a diff [46] where he said WW was him, though there are much earlier ones than that one too. SlimVirgin 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC) NE2, there's no point in copying material from elsewhere. I can't find diff violations in there, and if you're having to copy it, that suggests you can't either. My concern is that this is a pile-on where everyone is assuming someone else knows what the evidence is. But is there real evidence? SlimVirgin 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That is the evidence, and it includes a bunch of violations, your denial notwithstanding. --NE2 05:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Slim, the diffs provided certainly shows the creation of the illusion of greater support than their really is and it is being done in a content dispute. This is evidence of abusive sock puppetry. Chillum 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Were these socks or were they (known or obvious) alternate accounts? I think someone entirely uninvolved needs to be the judge of that. SlimVirgin 05:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Um... a sock is simply an alternate account used improperly. It's clear from the diffs that they were used imporperly. Therefore they are socks. --NE2 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) ( 2 x ec) Yes, you're right, if and only if he was pretending it wasn't him. But was he pretending? Watching Wales was clearly him and known to be. The same with A Knavish Bonded. And the other accounts mentioned made almost no edits and were created after David retired as David Shankbone. SlimVirgin 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I do not doubt that some people knew "A Knavish Bonded" was an anagram of "David Shankbone" and that the account was controlled by him, but I do not believe that it was readily evident to most editors he worked with under that name. David Shankbone did edit from his account on November 19, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) So David retires his main account, and then immediately starts creating multiple, undisclosed accounts which start editing his favorite topics? How is that not "avoiding scrutiny" again? --Jayron32 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, once a legitimate account is used to avoid scrutiny or create the false illusion of greater support then it is by our definition a sock puppet. I don't get the question. For the record, I am not involved in this at all, and that is how I have judged it. Chillum 05:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (EC x2 respond to SV) I'm entirely uninvolved; unless you count contributing to this discussion somehow makes anyone retroactively involved forever into the past. As I stated above, I have never interacted with David in any meaningful way, and I find the recent use of throwaway socks to disguise his editing to be eggregious violations of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Part of the issue is he was harassed and used alt accounts to avoid the harassment. That he veered into also using one or two, at times, at odds with teh spirit of transparency is indeed regretable but also understandable in the light of a harassment campaign that has gone on for a very long time. This is an opportunity for those who are left behind to decide how much we reward abuse of editors. We seem eager to pillory him but these events were not in a vacuum. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Now that's at least a reasonable explanation of the problem. Thank you Benjiboi. I was unaware of any recent harassment problems, but if you are correct, that would at least go some distance towards him wanting to disguise himself. Being that I have never once even looked at Wikipedia Review, I may have missed anything which went on there that may have lead to his feeling harrassed to the point of abandoning his main account. Is there anywhere one can see evidence of this harrassment? --Jayron32 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Jayron32, his life was threatened at one point and David Shanbone was created, IMHO, by someone masking as him to discredit him. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) FWIW, David suggests in today's comment that the checkuser in the case was involved in disparaging him on Wikipedia Review where much of this effort, including Delicious carbunkle. Not sure if the results would be any different but the interpretation of those results suggest a COI may have impacted all of this. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table". It sounds like there's pounding of the table going on. I don't see as how another checkuser will be necessary, as David has admitted it on his talk page, but if you think Alison has somehow misused her powers as a checkuser, you can always take it up with the Audit Subcommittee. Also, I have no problem with him starting an alternate account, but without disclosure (even privately) and using it in ways SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by the policy, to unduly influence consensus, is a complete and utter no-no. And I understand that Mr. Shankbone has gone through a difficult time here, not entirely of his own making, but "He's been harrassed" isn't a get-out-of-rules free card. SirFozzie (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Good grief! Attack the messenger time? Well, as I stated on David's talk page, I fully welcome any other checkuser on the project to re-run the check and come to their own conclusions. To be honest, I'd not even seen WR until the case was concluded & I only just got back here earlier today from being out of state - Allie ❤ 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) David writes Alison, who has continually expressed extreme dislike (often involving throw-up emoticons or those sticking their tongue out in disgust after my name :-)) for me both on- and off-wiki for years, was hardly a neutral Checkuser when it comes to me, but no matter. I assumed he was referringto Wikipedia review but if you're not active there so be it. -- Banjeboi 05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Nono. I didn't see the WR thread before running the check. I am actually a regular contributor to WR (it's on my userpage). Sorry for the confusion - Allie ❤ 07:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This initial spin notes a personal attack which he denies was his intent. A more NPOV reading may have resulted in less alarm with pitchfork-wielding villagers is all I'm suggesting. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) I think we have a big problem with the SOCK policy. It encourages the use of alternate accounts and tells people they don't need to make the explicit connection. Then when people get it wrong, we clamp down on them. What I'm seeing here is a similar situation to Geogre, where an account is widely known to be him, and he thinks he's not violating SOCK, but apparently it's not widely-enough known, and so he screws up. If we have that situation here, I feel a six-month block is very unfair. SlimVirgin 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec)Comparing this to Geogre is not exactly an implication of innocence, I would say both were in clear violation of the sock policy's letter and spirit and did so on purpose. Chillum 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know which page you are reading , but WP:SOCK does not encourage creation of multiple accounts. It actually states, in the very first sentence, "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only" It then goes through a long litany of reasons why using multiple accounts is a Bad Idea (tm). It does give a narrow list of allowable uses of multiple accounts, but this is not the prominent part of that policy page. --Jayron32 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Jayron, please read the policy. I have tried very hard to tighten it to stop these misunderstandings, but I've been stopped at every turn by editors who want it to remain loose, and situations like this are a direct consequence. SlimVirgin 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I am reading the policy right now. It also says "Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy." He created no less than 3 new accounts in November and edited with all of them. Look, we can only apply the policy as written. That you have a particular opinion on how WP:SOCK should read isn't exactly germaine here. The policy is what it is; and I don't see where creating multiple new accounts in a rapid fashion and using them as throwaways isn't somehow a violation. --Jayron32 05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The widely known thing is clearly a misnomer - there is a difference between widely known (among your circle of acquaintances, and up-front declared on user and user talk pages so ANYONE can know) ViridaeTalk 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This seems to show clearly that he was known to be A Knavish Bonded. So I'm now completely confused as to why edits from that account are being used to block him. SlimVirgin 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That still requires regular editors to be psychic. ViridaeTalk 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) If it's known to the ArbCom, then it's known, Viridae. SlimVirgin 05:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) FWIW, Cool Hand Luke was not on the ArbCom at that time. Nor does notifying ArbCom of an alternate account mean that it can be used to edit the same pages as the main account in a way that would suggest to normal editors that they are different people. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I have to say that the diff immediately above, plus the fact that ArbCom knew, plus the fact that the user name is an anagram, adds up to compelling evidence that that account, at least, was not created to deceive. It might have been created to avoid scrutiny, but that is perfectly acceptable when scrutiny equals death threats. Whether there was a letter-of-the-law breach of WP:SOCK is not of interest; like every other policy, sock must be read in its spirit, not its letter. Hesperian 05:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) You're right; I didn't realize Luke wasn't on ArbCom at the time. But I disagree with your second point. If an alternate account is known as that person, they can of course edit as they see fit. The thing to avoid is active deception, so we get back to the question: was he really pretending to be someone else? A Knavish Bonded was clearly him, as was Watching Wales. SlimVirgin 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I do not see evidence that the alternate account was known as that person. To a normal editor not versed in Wikipolitics who visited the userpage and talk page of User:A Knavish Bonded, there would have been no connection between the two editors. My point was that notifying ArbCom of an alternate account is not a license to use that account in ways that would otherwise violate WP:SOCK, which remains the case. Dekimasuよ! 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC) OK. Lets refocus here. Throw out Knavish and WatchingWales; those clearly were known to ArbCom, which is enough for me, so lets stop defending those. What about this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one all created and used and discarded within a 30 day period, two of them on the same day (November 14). This is clearly not an allowable use of multiple accounts; rapidly and repeatedly creating a string of multiple accounts does not seem to be anything other than a sockfarm. I don't see any other way to read this. How is THAT not a WP:SOCK violation? One new account is "avoiding harassment". Six in a 4 week period is avoiding scrutiny pure and simple. --Jayron32 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (I have not seen any evidence that Knavish was known to ArbCom. I ignored WatchingWhales because I saw that it was known to ArbCom. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)) (ec to Jayron) Remember that User:DavidShankbone had gone into retirement on October 30, and the diffs you show are from after that. Was it a violation of the policy for him to create throwaway accounts after his main account had publicly retired? Are there diffs showing that the throwaway accounts acted in concert with each other in a deceptive way? It is not a sockfarm unless there was active deception involved, or the operator was evading a ban or block. SlimVirgin 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) SlimVirgin, please. This is beginning to look like williful ignorance here. I keep quoting the lines from WP:SOCK where it is an obvious violation. "Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy." is right there. In English. I am not unwilling to be convinced that David should be unblocked, but somehow claiming its OK to create multiple throwaway accounts is OK because it's "David doing it, so that's fine" doesn't cut it. I am also fully willing to WP:IAR and WP:AGF here, but you are going to have to show me how this is somehow justfied. I am not seeing it... --Jayron32 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Jayron, please ask yourself: if you were to retire today publicly—not under a cloud just a retirement—and therafter you set up User:X to make a few edits to articles you'd edited before, then User:Y, then User:Z -- all throwaway accounts that otherwise didn't interact with each other -- are you saying your Jayron account ought to be blocked for six months for doing that? SlimVirgin 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Please don't set up strawman arguements. I have done no such thing, and redirecting the arguement in this way is unbecoming of you. --Jayron32 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It's not a strawman argument, it's a question. It's what's happening here, and I'm asking if that's what you truly support. SlimVirgin 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I have never done any of these things, and so its a bogus misdirection. David has done these things, so its David we are discussing. Not me. Not hypothetical "User X". David. A real editor with a real history that must be taken in context, not seperated from context by some false analogy to a hypothetical situation that does not exist. --Jayron32 06:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) FWIW, David Shankbone used his main account on November 19. I am unaware of any retirement message. There is a message on his talk page stating that he is unavailable due to a vacation, if that is what you are referring to. This does not seem to have been the case, considering that he was using the other accounts. I have never really interacted with David Shankbone and I think it's somewhat unfortunate that the block result here turned out to be one on the order of six months with hints of a ban discussion. However, I do not believe the edits from the sock accounts were within policy. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Arbitrary section break 1 SlimVirgin seems to be a hunt for a specific diff showing a clear and substantial violation of the letter of the sock policy as written. Or, perhaps, multiple ones over a long time, with some recently. This is all as if there was some objective criteria that we could measure against on a WP:SOCK violation to block length table. I appreciate the desire for such "hard evidence" and black letter wikilaw, but there is no such thing. Blocks are done as a judgment call, usually the administrators' and often buttressed by the general inclination of the community. I am not interested in the perilously subjective by diving into David Shankbone's mental state and trying to judge how illicit his intent was, nor am I going to give into the fantasy of uncontroversial objective criteria. I implied it above, and I'll say it plainly here, David Shankbone's use of multiple accounts are incompatible with a consensus driven collaborative encyclopedia project. As an administrator, I am charged with using good judgment and sense in exercising my discretion to protect the encyclopedia and its working environment from damage. The very act of using multiple accounts is deceptive on its face. Using deception while working with material you authored, without it being obvious you had done so threatens to cripple the consensus driven editing process. If WP:SOCK doesn't have that principle (that is, the actual policy) buried in its many kilobytes of text (I'm sure it does), throw out what is written and rewrite it until its right. We can argue about minutiae until the cows come home, but lets not.--Tznkai (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Does anyone else see any kind of potential for an actual resolution coming from this discussion? It's quickly devolving into a traditional dramafest; might I suggest that if someone has an issue with the actions of the admins here, this is probably something to take to ArbCom? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I think the consensus is that is was a violation of the sock policy. I think there is also general agreement that the "standard offer" be followed. It is lamentable the Slim disagrees, but the agreement of those not involved with David in any way is that the block is needed. I would have preferred a shorter block, but I cannot dispute the block that stands as it is in line with policy and well within admin discretion. Short of a drastic change in consensus, this seems resolved. Chillum 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Support unblock After reading through this discussion, the checkuser report, and the discussion on David's page, this seems relatively minor to me. I think a voluntary agreement to a 1 month break and an agreement to use one and only one account in the future suffices. This isn't all its cracked up to be. Some of the edits promote his photos, but he's adding photos to improve articles. I can't really find anything horrendously insidious in any of the diffs. Using socks to win disputes or to sway an election would be a very big deal. This is a bit unseemly and inappropriate, but not really the end of the world. He set up undisclosed accounts to do some photo work after "retiring". Let's show that we're bigger than engaging in punitive punishment because we can. There's nothing here that's really outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse block. Abuse of multiple accounts = sockpuppetry = ban. He got off lucky with a time-limited block. The same standards ought to be applied to all disruptive editors, whether with a history of positive contributions or not.  Sandstein  06:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse indef - Sock Puppetry is one of the worse problems that Wikipedia can ever face, especially when it is done to hide edits, to fake consensus, and the rest. A later ArbCom appeal of an indef would be appropriate, but not a 6 month block. Otherwise, we are just turning our backs and allowing him to possibly go on with another account for the time period that would be dropped and not traced to him. We need a solid statement on sock puppets and sock puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse - I explicitly endorse Tznkai's view as written at the top of this subsection as well as the block itself. SlimVirgin widely misses the mark here, but that notwithstanding, I see consensus. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) What happened to the "blocks are not punitive" manta we always hear when certain other troublemakers get caught. I have come to suspect that we might need punishment blocks after all, but then we should be consistent about it. Now, it depends too much on whether influential people like you or not. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Is David Shankbone a helpful contributor to the encyclopedia? He is. The only problem he has is that he has a problem with WP:OWN with his images, which became a sockpuppetry problem now unfortunately. But he’s still a valid contributor, and it’s counterproductive to the project to lose him. There needs to be a better solution. I rather do a shorter block, maybe to a month so he could learn his lesson, and a extremely strong admonishment, saying if you sock again your block would be longer. After his block ends, form some kind of mentorship for him. That would be the best solution to this problem. Secret account 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, why doesn't Wikipedia have a formal admonishment system outside of ArbCom? Doling out blocks to satisfy upset people is an obvious bad idea. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC) One should be created, but that would be almost impossible to form consensus on it. Here it seems like the community can't settle this dispute easily, I'll endorse this case going to the Arbitration Committee. Secret account 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 6 months seems excessive. This user has been harassed on and off Wikipedia for a very long time and that organized efforts to bait and wikihound are dismissed as irrelevant as is his life being threatened speaks more about those who remain than his actions which he admits were not well thought out but also not quite as evil as his detractors would want us to believe. His actions did not occur in a vacuum and his own statements show he indeed did not understand some of the non-controversial sock uses. This is hardly the first user that has had that issue. Given his rather lengthy and substantial record as a good Wikipedian it seems overkill to make an example of him when heated debate here even suggests this was more about personalities that actual problems. His detractors wanted and got a public flogging, I'm sure a quick look at Wikipedia Review will show the keen attention heaped on him for some time. In short the punishment does not fit the infractions and we are emboldening those who have worked to harass him that this will be the new status quo for outing, harassing and subduing any perceived "enemies" ultimately driving otherwise productive editors to desperate means. No socking problems should not be readily dismissed but neither should we dismiss the ongoing harassment that led to the need to use alternative accounts. What remains lacking is a constructive way forward that the user can somehow edit here productively without harassment whether in six months or sooner. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'll agree with Banjiboy, almost any other circumstance I would have endorsed an indef block wholeheartedly but Shankbone has been harassed so contently, that his behavior changed as a result. A six month block is clearly not the solution. We let worse violators of WP:SOCK go with little harm, and his violation wasn’t that severe (no harassing, not use to gain an advantage to edit wars, etc). Secret account 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC) On the other hand I think the stalking/harassment card has been overplayed here. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse block - extend indef. There are ways to deal with alleged harassment other than sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) New Proposal The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. closing this one down. Can't fault me for trying to find a compromise, but there is clearly no support for this alternative plan. Thanks to everyone for commenting.--Jayron32 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC) OK, Slim Virgin. Here's a concession. Lets try this proposal on for size: David Shankbone, as an editor, is restricted to one account. If he wishes, he may continue editing under one already existing account of his choosing OR he may create a single new account, which he discloses privately to ArbCom, should he wish to make a "clean break" from his old identity due to harassment concerns. No other restrictions or punitive action is to be taken as long as David maintains one account. Should David be found to be maintaining multiple accounts in an undisclosed manner in the future, he may be banned for up to six months. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. David gets to edit freely. He gets to make a clean break to avoid harassment, if he chooses. And the community gets the assurance that there will be no shenanigans going on with multiple undisclosed accounts. How does THAT sound to everyone? --Jayron32 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That sounds much fairer, Jayron. My preference would be to loosen it a little more, and say that David must disclose any alternate accounts to the ArbCom, but that if he does this, he may edit with more than one if he wants to. But I'd accept your proposal as a compromise. SlimVirgin 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No. One account, please, especially considering the history. Also note that retiring one account and starting another is not really a good way to avoid harassment if one continues to edit in the same manner so that one's identity becomes obvious. Thatcher 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think some sort of block for this abuse is needed, at least a week to a month if I was making the decision. If it happens again then six months is not something I would support, the same thing again would be indef as far as I am concerned. Chillum 06:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No. I'm not pushing this one on ArbCom to monitor unless they ask for it or David Shankbone goes the standard BASC route.--Tznkai (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Tznkai It's standard practice to allow people to disclose hidden accounts to ArbCom if they wish to avoid connecting there accounts for legitimate purposes, how is this any different? Furthermore Chillum, blocks are not punitive. Why demand he stay blocked if we have an alternate means of fixing the problem? --Jayron32 06:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The problem is your proposal involves trusting someone who was only just revealed to be abusing trust. Some time needs to be taken before we start re-extending trust again. Chillum 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) He can identify whatever alternate accounts he has to whoever he wants. Doing it as part of an unblock makes it ArbCom's implied responsibility to monitor for compliance. Either that, or they pass on the ident to CU's so they know which alternate account is "cleared." As far as prevention, we are preventing someone from editing. Someone who was abusing multiple accounts in a way that breaks the consensus model. Any wiggle room on that is properly found the standard offer or something similar.--Tznkai (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) No, to reducing the block any further. This was blatant, cynical abuse of Wikipedia's rules and policies to promote himself. I will miss the content he provides. But I will not miss the drama and unhealthy environment his actions have provided. SirFozzie (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) In fairness, Sir Fozzie, a huge amount of the drama is created by others, and David gets blamed for it because he defends himself. The very fact that every single time I've tried to post here I've had an edit conflict, often two, in itself indicates there's too much excitement around this block, and that's never a good thing because it suggests non-cool heads. I think Jayron's proposal is fair, given that some of the people commenting here don't see what David did as a violation of the policy in the first place. SlimVirgin 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) What part of the drama was created by others here? Did others make him make seven accounts when one would have sufficed? Did others make him post with one of those socks (undeclared, and not even understandable to be him) on the user talk page in an attempt to fan the flames to punish that administrator for deleting the David Shankbone article? As I said, you cannot wave the "Oh, he's been harassed in the past" card around as a "Get out of following the rules card" ala Monopoly. In fact, I would go so far to say that if it wasn't someone with David's copious amounts of photo contribution in the same situation (sockpuppeting to sway consensus about an article about the real life person), we wouldn't be playing these games with trying to reduce the block from six months.. it would be about three posters and done, and the closing admin would state "Indeffed for sockpuppeting and COI" and it would be over right then and there. Sorry, I cannot and will not support any further reduction in the block time. SirFozzie (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It was definitely a violation. No question about it. But I don't think it was especially disruptive or damaging, and our response needs to be measured and to take into account the good work done by this contributor. As per Jayron and cooler heads not out for heads on a spike, let's take appropriate respectful action that addresses the problem without being punitive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) Sir Fozzie, I have seen people create huge amounts of drama around David, both here and on Wikipedia Review, then some of the same people who commented there come here to crank it up further. It has been going on for years, and it would be quite wrong to blame him for it, when what he's guilty of is not taking it lying down. That's in part why he created some other accounts, to escape it. That mirrors very precisely the situation with George, who also created his other account to escape unjustified attention. But even ignoring the harassment aspect, given that people knew the accounts were his, the diffs really do not warrant a six-month block or anything close to it. If he's restricted to one account from now on, that would seem to be a fair compromise. SlimVirgin 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The first I knew of the David Shankbone sock issue when I saw it here. I now know there is a thread over there on this (as there is usually over anything that generates this much interest), but that does not sway my view of things. Yes, he had good reason to start A new account. Note the bolding there. Seven new accounts, most of which were not generally known to be him, and to edit in areas with an undisclosed conflict of interest.. no I'm sorry, there is no desire for a compromise, or any reason to offer a compromise more then already has been done *IE, that he's not indeffed, and can come back in six months if no further shenanigans occur*. SirFozzie (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (Reply to self) in fact, I'd be more inclined to take pleas for leniency seriously if he had shown contrition for what he had done, or even stated that he knew he had stepped over the boundaries of what is expected with Wikipedia's editors. Instead, he's pointing fingers at Allie for running the checkuser (never mind it was true), and everyone BUT himself. That's why I'm taking the hard line here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Disagree. David's duplicitous conduct seriously undercuts the credibility not only of his harassment claims, but (unfortunately) also of my own. Over a year ago he and I went public together about having both been targeted by harassment due to our Wiki volunteer work. Now it turns out among several other problems he was using a sock in violation of WP:TPG and WP:NPA to target me,[47] and when confronted his answer contained further misrepresentations.[48] The deceit and rudeness were completely unnecessary; he could have just talked to me. If David was targeted in the past it certainly doesn't give him a license to behave abusively toward the people who trusted him. Durova371 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Durova, with all due respect, I think you're making this/ taking this too personally. He reverted a goat image posted as part of a thread closing using a sock. The goat image could be construed as mocking, especially since a pissing goat image had been added to the article about him at one point to demean his contributions. His actions and socking weren't appropriate, but it wasn't a personal attack or an attempt to sway an outcome. I think this all needs to be kept in perspective. It was unhelpful and inappropriate behavior, and it violated our policies, but I don't think it's relevant to other broader issues of harassment or a major disruptive abuse that needs to be met with a massive response. People get frustrated sometimes, burn out on Wikipedia, and do stupid things. Let's give him a break, figuratively and literally, and show him the respect we'd like to be given in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Posts that begin with all due respect seldom express any genuine respect at all. We don't shorten blocks when they blame the checkuser, blame the people who were acting in good faith, and answer in half-truths. Please focus on the facts. Durova371 06:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yet we need to be seen to be fair. The last episode of a long-running editor using a large sock farm that I worked on, they were blocked for a month and later unblocked after less than half of that after promising to stick to one account and be regularly CU'd. This is no different. Black Kite 06:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Then we can revist in a bit under 3 months then.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Was the last one socking to prolong the drama of his own biography's AFD? Durova371 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That seems fair, after all 2 weeks is exactly equivalent to 3 months. This is fairly simple, really - either we block disruptive sockmasters for a long (perhaps a mimimum) time, or we use escalating blocks. Not just making it up on the spot. I don't have any sympathy for Shankbone here, but I can see why people are pointing out the inconsistencies. Black Kite 08:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) All blocks are made up on the spot. This isn't the law, there are no judges, no juries, no sentencing guidelines, no due process, no arrests, no subpoenas, no attorneys, no statutes, no common law, no case law, no ritual invocations, and most relevantly, no sentencing guidelines. Even if there were sentencing guidelines, they would be a bad idea. In fact, even if this were like the law or other real life analogues, a brief study of the those structures will reveal that they are also inconsistent and sensitive to context. This is the reality we have, and its ugly and unfortunate implication is that objective criteria are ill advised and impossible, and that making sure your admins are possessing of good judgment and character is the only effective control on it. The alternative may create consistency, but by its nature it will lead to an inflexible and top heavy series of rules, which themselves will be argued about incessantly. Like all systems (again, analogous to real life) it will give nearly insurmountable advantage to repeat players. tl;dr It was a judgment call. I stand by it. I refuse to pretend there is some sort of objective standard for block length, and I refuse to be bound by what another set of admins did in a situation that may or may not be substantially similar to this one.--Tznkai (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Support minimum six month block for this editor and for all such deceitful, self-promoting MMORPG players.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) David Shankbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked a small number of times, never lasting more than a day. I suggest a two week block at most, and restriction to use a single account going forward. That's what a sock puppeteer normally gets. We should neither make the punishment harsher, nor lighter due to David's fame. I've processed many sock puppetry cases and have a pretty good handle on what's fair. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The fact that admins haven't had the guts to block this guy for longer, sooner, is not a reason that it shouldn't be a minimum of six months for lying. That's basically what he was doing. This whole thing here runs on trust. He has shown not one ounce of contrition for his lying and deceit (it's all self justification and bizarre claims of stalkers -- if he really has a stalker related to wikipedia and he's scared about it, he shouldn't be here period. If he stays, ergo he's not really in any danger. Just another smoke screen to manipulate people). I never heard of this guy until a few weeks ago. But looking into it, he uses wikipedia as a promotional tool for his blog and outside interests, and also gives lots of ink to his pals here. This is corrosive, and if he was a bog-standard user who didn't have advocates like you Jehochman, the key would have been thrown away long ago.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, hit him with the six month ban. He can get back to self-promotion, promoting the interests of his friends after that. Saying that I have no faith, he'll not carry on socking and count on the protection of his enablers. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Shankbone accepts the block, so can we go home now? David Shankbone's comments on the situation, which have not been discussed, are pretty relevant. He first noted "Ultimately, if I'm blocked for this kind of stuff it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other" and then, more directly, "I accept my six month ban." So he clearly violated the sockpuppet policy (I must say that the edit to Jake Wartenberg's talk page referenced several times above was completely ridiculous and just is not excusable), was blocked for it by an admin, a number of other admins and editors have supported that (add me to the list), and then Shankbone himself says he accepts the block. So what is there to talk about? If Shankbone wants to appeal the block and/or come to some kind of agreement with the community that's totally fine, but if he's okay with the current situation I can't fathom why we would continue to debate a block that is only being objected to by a couple of people, and not the person who was blocked. If anything this discussion should be closed at some point in the near future and then re-opened if Shankbone seeks to change the status quo. We have little or nothing to gain by continuing this conversation right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC) A note about ArbCom It is not true to say that these socks were known about by ArbCom. It appears that one member of ArbCom (who was not a member of ArbCom at the time!) knew about it a long time ago, before joining ArbCom. (It would be unreasonable to expect new ArbCom members to disclose every single thing they know about everyone on Wikipedia, of course.) Several ArbCom members and I were first told of this ("A Knavish Bonded") on November 4th. (And the other one a bit earlier, but I'm not sure when exactly at the moment.) I only post about this because I sometimes get email complaining that David Shankbone is under some special protection by me and/or ArbCom. That's simply untrue. These socks were not approved of by ArbCom, nor even known about by ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) A note here to confirm what Jimbo has stated. No alternate accounts of David Shankbone are registered or known to ArbCom, I have not heard of any, and they have never been discussed by ArbCom (and thus certainly not approved in any way). — Coren (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Anyone still feel that six months is too long? Cla68 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I dunno, it doesn't appear that Geogre was blocked at all for basically the same thing. [49] Not that I don't think there should be a block involved, but this seems a little harsh (and to some degree motivated by personal disagreements). He lost his admin status over it, but that's still a step short of this kind of block. RxS (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think having your admin bit removed is a few steps beyond a 6 month block. I suppose it depends on how one views the position though. Perhaps Geogre should have been blocked as well, Jossi was blocked indefinitely for this sort of thing and lost the bit. I guess what I am saying is that different situations call for different responses. Chillum 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Clarification: Jossi resigned and retired very shortly after evidence was posted against him in an arbitration case. He said the retirement was for personal reasons unrelated to the evidence. ArbCom called it a controversial circumstances resignation and required contact if he started editing under another account. Afterward he was caught using a sockpuppet account to disrupt a featured article candidate related to his COI, which was the sort of thing he had done before. That's when the indef happened. Durova371 16:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) So it's official, adminship gives an extra life in the Wikipedia game. Checkuser/Oversight and ArbCom membership each gives one more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That witty sound bite doesn't reflect well on the poster. People put a lot of time into addressing all three of the situations that are being discussed as examples. If one rolls one's sleeves and does the work then a bit of frustration at the end is understandable. In this instance the comment just looks snarky. Durova371 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It was intended to be snarky. Wouldn't you agree that it is a problem that Wikipedia officially doesn't do punishment, by we do it anyway in a rather arbitrary way? It wasn't aimed at you personally. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) If you approach Wikipedia like a game, with winners and losers, (though no one has ever explained what the win and loss conditions are) then I suppose in sort of abstraction being an admin does give you some extra level of protection. In practical terms however, who cares? The machinations and unfairness of "the game" don't matter to you unless you play and they matter only to Wikipedia in the collateral success and damage that is created by it. When the game players (whoever you imagine them to be) churn out articles, good administrative work, successful mediation, or what not for whatever bonus points, let them have their hollow pat on the back, and smile. Just because they're operating for some sort of extrinsic pursuit doesn't mean we don't collectively gain benefit from it. When the game players start goofing off, it is perhaps irritating, but it isn't really a big deal. When the game players start causing actual damage, then we worry, and hopefully we manage to act. Complaining about the game playing only makes the game stronger. It moves your focus and the focus of your audience. Accusations of gameplaying are just another move, and its not worth it. Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you, and you'll usually find yourself happier.--Tznkai (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The problem is that the rules, as they are applied, do not facilitate writing the encyclopedia. In theory, anyone can edit unless they keep disrupting and refuse to stop, adminship is given to those who can be trusted with it, and the same with oversight, checkuser, etc. In practice blocks, desysoping and removal of privileges happen when enough powerful people are really angry at you at the same time and you have done at least something provably wrong. Either we should be serious about the philosophy of prevention not punishment, and then we need to stop having mob trials of against individuals on noticeboards. We need some kind of lower courts that take on smaller cases before ArbCom. Alternatively, we could admit that we do punishments, and then those punishments should be designed to deter negative behavior while allowing the punished to continue with valuable contributions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (ec'd) Great post, Tznkai. Durova371 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks Durova. Apoc, we've gone completely off topic and the reply I typed up (which I'm sure is not as great) only goes further, so I'll continue on your talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Sure, this is rather meta. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) For the record, a link to the Geogre motion: [50]. It is worth noting that that situation and this one are different in a number of respects — this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. (For example, Geogre was an admin – and desysopped for his conduct – while Shankbone is not. On the other hand, Geogre only operated one alternate account, while Shankbone created at least five new accounts just in November of this year.) One can examine all manner of both mitigating and aggravating circumstances in both cases; it's up to the community to decide how to weigh those factors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Agree that different situations can call for different responses, nothing happens in a vacuum. Jossi violated arbcom sanctions in the course of the violation which would be an aggravating factor. I'm not engaged in this at all, but from a distance it looks pretty harsh. At least Geogre can still edit here if he wanted, though he doesn't seem to want to. David has few friends here, and even fewer off-wiki which makes a fair outcome difficult. RxS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I agree that I would have chosen a shorter duration myself, however I cannot argue that 6 months is outside of our common reaction to this sort of thing. Perhaps we can revisit this in 3 months as has been suggested before, block lengths are not written in stone after all. Chillum 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) While I acknowledge that there had to be consequences for his actions, I think that revisiting the block in 3 months (if David requests) is an entirely reasonable solution. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I also think 6 months is too long - there seems to have been quite little actual disruption or manipulation as a result of the socking. Balancing the good and the bad, I think a shorter block would have been more appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I am the ArbCom member referred to by Jimmy Wales. I knew about User:WatchingWhales (but did not follow the account and did not know until a few months ago that it continued editing after the THF arbitration, where I observed it in 2007). I also knew about User:A Knavish Bonded (although I did not realize that the account continued editing after my talk page message to him—when I noticed A Knavish Bonded, it appeared that David was transitioning to a new account due to stalking on User:David Shankbone). It should also be noted that I had an adversarial relationship with David Shankbone at the time I noticed these accounts, and I was certainly not trying to protect him. We made peace before last year's ArbCom election, but I was unaware of any other accounts until told by third parties via email. There is no discussion about these accounts in the arbcom-l archive, and they were not approved by ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Is there a clear direction somewhere how and where alternative accounts/socks are logged? I was under the impression that reporting these was voluntary except under previous Arbcom cases where directed to do so. Has that changed? -- Banjeboi 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The WP:SOCK policy is pretty clear, see here, though I'm not sure how long that has been there. But that's a side issue. The point is that Shankbone's socks violated the sock policy, specifically aspects like WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH (the latter with respect to an edit of User:Jake Wartenberg's talk page). But again, why are we talking about this? David again (see the section I started above) confirmed that he does not mind the six month block (and that he doesn't mind making it longer or shorter, but if he's fine with the status quo let's keep it there). He seems quite happy to take a break. Benjiboi you might want to avoid wasting further effort here when Shankbone perhaps does not even want the help—maybe this is a break he needed. Unless there is nothing else to work on here on en.wikipedia or in our real lives I highly, highly recommend that an univolved admin close this entire thread and we move on to other things. If David changes his mind and wants the block removed or shortened at a later date then of course we can revisit it. Further discussion when the blockee (and the majority of those who have commented here) is fine with the block is quite pointless, and it's a bit bizarre that folks seem to be studiously ignoring that fact. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Seconded. Durova371 17:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) If he agreed with the block, I guess it's pointless to keep on discussing it. So I would close this discussion. Any objections? Secret account 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I have a hunch that he is resigned that as much as he has had some positive experiences here the harassment has made things less so - this is exactly why - in theory - we forbid harassment/ Yet here is a case that it has been largely ignored. That those involved were/are/turned toxic doesn't diminish that (i) the harassment is what led to the alt accounts (ii) they started just being alt accounts (iii) the socking was largely inconsequential (iv) even if you don't like him his good work here is indisputable and is actively being discredited by a somewhat organized effort on at least two outside websites (v) in theory we try to keep good editors while showing those who seem to only want to stir up drama the door - we seem to be doing the opposite here; and (vi) there likely are better options. Does this really represent the best we can do here? -- Banjeboi 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I have to call balderdash on this: (i) Again, if he had created ONE account and edited away, that's understandable. Seven, not so much. (ii) Yes, they just started, but they were all being used in ways forbade by policy. (iii) No, the socking was NOT inconsequential.. they were being used (without acknowledging who they actually were) in an attempt to discredit an administrator who had the "temerity" to delete the article about David Shankbone. (iv and v) His good work is the only reason this thread has lasted so long.. if it was someone without his record of good work, he would have been quickly indeffed within 15 minutes of the SPI report coming back as confirmed. (vi) Giving David credit for what he did, he left a message on his page, and has said he will serve out his block quietly, which is the proper response, and we can review this down the road, should he still wish to contribute. So yes, this is the best we can do here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Crosslink to Commons

Please see Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/David_Shankbone for additional information. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad page title

Can some administrator familiar with the API delete pageid 21753693? It's got a bad title (ends in a space, somehow), and hence can't be deleted by any standard process. (It's also impossible to view, though, making it a pretty uncontroversial delete.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually possible to view. Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Right you are - forgot about permalinks for some reason, thanks for reminding me. Still can't do anything to the page from there, though - the edit/move/history links all work off of the title, and end up telling you there's nothing there. I don't have a sysop bit, but I imagine the delete link would have the same problem. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, internal error. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21753693&action=edit works for me. I wonder if http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21753693&action=delete works? Tim Song (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of trying that, actually! The answer is no, unfortunately. I also have the suppress button available, but I daren't check it! - Allie ^❤ 08:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, action=edit doesn't work either. It creates a new page when you click save. [51]. Ugh. Tim Song (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Dragons flight (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I see it in your logs, with the extra space in the title, but how, how did you do that??? Cool! :) - Allie ^❤ 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Black magic. I opened a delete form, rewrote the submit action to target the curid rather than the name, and used that. Dragons flight (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Very smart indeed! I'm taking a note of this little trick - we'll definitely see it again, I reckon. It's also kinda BEANSy, having pages hanging about like that - Allie ^❤ 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it got created (might be something specific to the Books system?), but it's obviously not easy to do, seeing as how this is the first time I've ever seen such a page. :) May be worth noting in Bugzilla if we can determine how it happened, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps MediaWiki:Titleblacklist could be used to stop this in the future? NW (Talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps - but this is an illegal MediaWiki title, that won't work properly on any installation. It's therefore much better if we can figure out how it was created and get that stopped at the software level rather than hacking our way round it. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When was this page created? I would suspect at some time the Collection extension did not trim the name of the book or check for illegal titles, but a creation date would be handy to see what the software was like at the time. MER-C 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the creation times of pages with adjacent IDs (previous/next, it appears to have been created at 16:30 on 1 March 2009. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in your time zone. The creation can be seen by admins here. The same user created the same title without the ending space the following minute [52] and later moved it. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Identifying edits from a banned user

For several years now, User:Gibraltarian has been vandalising Gibraltar-related articles using a series of IP addresses in the 212.120.*.* range. He appears to have a dynamic IP connection, so it is fairly easy for him to evade blocks on individual IPs. Unfortunately it has not been possible to rangeblock him as the potential collateral damage is substantial (the range corresponds to a Gibraltar ISP). I have watchlisted a number of his most frequently targeted pages but he keeps sneaking back to hit other pages that are not on my watchlist. Is it technically possible to add a rule to the edit filter that would pick up any edits from 212.120.*.* so that they can be reviewed? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a gadget that allows one to check edits from a /16 range (which would be 212.120.0.0/16 in this case). It seems to me that monitoring edits to Gibraltar-related pages from a Gibraltar ISP would only result in many false positives. Unless there's something that Gibraltarian does every time, the edit filter's not going to do squat.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it sounds. In all the time I've been monitoring and dealing with Gibraltarian's vandalism, I've never seen anyone other than him using a 212.120.*.* IP address to edit while logged out. If there are other editors using those IPs then they only appear to do so while logged in. The edits made by logged-out IP addresses from that range block will overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, be from Gibraltarian. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why have we not contacted the Gibraltarian ISP about this individual?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relatively low-level vandalism affecting a fairly limited number of articles. We're not talking about another Hagger here. The only really unusual aspect is his sheer obsessive persistence - he's been at this ever since he was banned. I've been keeping on top of this for several years now, but it would be nice to have a more effective way of spotting his activities. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Through cooperation with Bell Canada, Someguy1221 and I have gotten rid of a vandal who really really hates the Power Rangers. I would think that Gibcom or whatever it is would do the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this user's behavior on ANI. No need to split things here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is about Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not the banned user Gibraltarian (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is not involved in the current dispute about Gibraltar. (Confusing, I know.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New tools

I've been asked several times to create tools for users, Ive made a post or two about them but Ive created two new tools that I think merit a publication. but for completeness's sake Ill republish the list. If anyone has questions or feedback let me know. If you have a request for a tool or report just ask me Ill see what I can do.

• tools:~betacommand/user_stats.htm a unique edit counter
• tools:~betacommand/AfD_parser.html a tool to parse AfD's (just a basic breakdown do not use it as a basis for closing AfDs)
• tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/fix_refs?ip= requires a pagename to be placed in the ip= part but converts articles to the new reference system (named refs are extracted and placed in the ref section. has some known bugs)
• tools:~betacommand/User_compare.htm my poor mans checkuser requires an access key (if you want one please email me) those saved reports are available at tools:~betacommand/UserCompare/ it also runs reports on all open SPI cases ever 6 hours.
• and the two new tools that people have shown great interest in:
• tools:~betacommand/block_prefix.html searches the block log for any username/ip starting with the search term.
• tools:~betacommand/ipblock_prefix.html is the same as above but is limited to active blocks only.

β^_command 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also, because I know I'll have an email when I get home; none of these tools perform edits or lead to the immediate performance of edits, so they do not violate Beta's restrictions. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to list two others:

• tools:~betacommand/SIL.html Single IP lookup is a very through lookup on a IP.
• tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html is a listing of CAT:CSD sorted by tag time, updated every 10 minutes.

β^_command 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to tools:~betacommand/cgi-bin/fix_refs?ip=, for converting refs, I would point out that the new list-defined system is not preferred over the previous in-text defined system; they are both acceptable and users shouldn't go around converting articles systematically. Thanks Beta for the tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are some nice tools. Glad Betacommand is unbanned, he's a really needed contributor. Secret ^account 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool tools. Any way of better formatting the timestamp on block_prefix? I know, I know....nitpicky and all that :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Its something Im working on. β^_command 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done β^_command 20:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the references one. You do good work. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That CSD sorter will be a big help - I was just this morning thinking that I could not remember which pages were new and which had been tagged last night. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tools. I've added a link to the AfD one to {{Afd2}}.  Sandstein  21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

/me waits for the nasty email from river (the toolserver admin). Enjoy ☺ β^_command 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Clear for the moment. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog at WP:AIV.--Zink Dawg -- 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party, but it looks to be sorted. –xeno^talk 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear for the moment. Marking as resolved. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Dear fellow admins... Our beloved bot colleague, DYKadminBot (talk · contribs), has been MIA for two days now, resulting in the need to manually update Template:Did you know. As such, I think it would be great if a few admins could watch the related pages and help with the updates. And of course there is always a backlog in verified submissions, so all editors are more than welcome to help with verifying suggestions. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now's the time I should start filling more prep areas...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot seems to be back but help with verifying submissions is still appreciated. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalistic page move

Aliciamachado (talk · contribs) has moved El Pantera to Soy lesbiana. I believe this move is vandalism. In order to revert it, the redirect page that was left at El Pantera will need to be deleted to make way for the page move back to the correct title. Can an admin handle this? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that account's contribs, this is clearly a vandal-only account impersonating a real person. I've blocked it indef, and deleted the userpage and talk page so it won't show up in search engines. Blueboy96 23:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins needed for closing Stub type deletion/rename discussions

There are some discussions from September at WP:SFD which still haven't been closed. Unfortunately, as someone who participated in these discussions, I can't close them. Can some other admin please deal with them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The stub types discussions are so poorly trafficked I would probably advise both you and Grutness to close discussions even if you participated in them - simply do so with the utmost care and due diligence and detached yourself from your own positions taken. I don't think this would be very controversial. –xeno^talk 14:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't protect pages

I've tried in my userspace and on an article- I can't get protection changes to stick. I assume there's a bug or database outage or something- is anyone else seeing this behavior? Feel free to test on my sandbox: User:Tedder/sandbox. tedder (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to work now- it looks like a database took a big fall. Where are these sort of issues normally reported or discussed? tedder (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm showing a lag of 745 seconds (over 12 minutes!) on my watchlist and I would assume the logs are just as far out of sync. It could be that protection is working but the logs are bogus. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the lag wasn't showing up, but I started looking at page histories and noticed they were out of date too. Felt sort of like screaming into a vacuum.. tedder (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my watchlist isn't updating, and my edits aren't showing up in page histories. AniMate 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In the last week I've had more than a few edits fail to show up in page history. I thought it might just be me. Crafty (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's something wierd going on. See [53]. Thejadefalcon says he cut and pasted his comment from the lower to the upper window following an edit conflict. As you can see, his went in, lower down the page, and at the same time, it deleted Ilario's post - which Thejadefalcon never went anywhere near, and which was already on the servier. The text was put back pronto, but there ought to be no way this can happen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrected my username. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So sorry. I blame the cold meds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting close of the AfD on Jonathan Cook

Resolved

The AfD on Jonathan Cook [54] has been running for more than a week and all the factual arguments for keeping or for deleting have been made days ago. With the AfD showing signs of turning less than polite, I would suggest that it might be time to close it one way or another.Jeppiz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed by Fences&Windows. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wiktionary Hover gadget

Could you please apply this installation already voted here, and installed today in 19 sister projects? JackPotte (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not involved in installation of any plugins or updates to the software running the site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, admins do modify the files to add a gadget to user preferences, as explained here. However, JackPotte should be directed to place the request at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals for discussion and approval. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent massive use of RevDelete (oversight)

Admins and others may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Recent_use_of_RevisionDelete_related_to_David_Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – You say copyvio, I say benign, lets call the whole thing off. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Links to David Gerard's blog ok?

In the broo ha ha discussion of all this, Durova removed my link to David Gerard's blog asserting that it should be removed under 'WP:LINKVIO' - I think this is silly (and 'in before DT' with the 'badsites' reference ;-) - I further don't think that there is a consensus that we can't link to David's blog - but it's worth checking, I guess :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a badsite, per se, (it wasn't even badsite-y from Durova, but Copyright-wise that she is concerned about) but even outside of that, I don't see the value to the encyclopedia in linking to the post in question. I was hoping that it would be removed as part of the current dispute, but we can certainly not force someone to remove information off of Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to leave others' comments alone as much as possible - see here for an example of post editing which seems to anger folk - this is not useful. Scott's example is a pretty good one for where the link actually relates directly to the valid and good faith point being made, no? Privatemusings (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I really have no clue as to why someone interfered with my post. They might at least have had the common courtesy to tell me. The reason simply seems incoherent. Copyvio?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(several ec's) That decision was unrelated to revdelete. Wikipedia's copyright violation policy has a contributory copyright infringement clause which routinely gets employed without incident. In this situation the link was first made by an account that got indeffed for disruption shortly afterward. Expressing disappointment in Privatemusings for first reinstating it, and then for bringing to AN while reviving the "badsites" meme after it was already explained as unrelated. Full discussion available here. Repeating the suggestion to Privatemusings to discuss at policy talk; his quarrel is with existing policy. Durova³⁷¹ 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova, this is bloody drama-stirring crap. First, do not refactor my posts. Second, if you do have the common courtesy to tell me [55]. Third, the copyright thing is incoherent drivel. Fourth, assume Good faith - do you know it is a copyvio on the blog? I assume David Gerard knows not to break the law - do you? Fifth, If the correspondence was addressed to Gerard, he's entitled to repost it anyway. Sixth, Even failing that, this is his problem, not ours. Seventh, Even if it was a copyvio (which there is no reason to think it is) there is fairuse in discussion. Now, stop this ridiculous nonsense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please interact with fellow editors civilly. This edit summary was also profane. I have engaged Scott Mac at user talk regarding other recent unprovoked outbursts. I have no desire to quarrel. David Gerard had posted another person's full email without permission, ergo copyvio. Delinking from that is, in principle, exactly the same as delinking from copyvio lyrics hosting sites. May we take this matter to policy talk? An archived or resolved template would be welcome here. Durova³⁷¹ 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not refactor my posts on silly pretexts, then don't have the grace to tell me, and then lecture me on civility when I get annoyed at you. You don't know that David has posted a copyvio - please assume his good faith. And if he has, that's his problem, not yours to enforce. No, we don't need to take this to a policy page, just stop meddling and we'll be fine.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could somebody explain why the vast body of editors, admins even, who contribute content and combat vandalism on a daily basis, should give a flying FCUK about this? If it's off-wiki, it doesn't belong here unless there is a direct impact here. I am not convinced there is such an impact. Meanwhile Category talk:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data needs work; dedicated, detailed work. I'd be more inclined to subscribe to the politics here if the basics were being visibly addressed. Rodhullandemu 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No politics are implicit at all--at least not on my side. Have initiated a discussion at policy talk. Requesting closure; there appears to be no actionable complant here. Durova³⁷¹ 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I cautioned PM about reading too much into Durova's comments about the links earlier, but it appears s/he is right. Removing links to a third party site from other discussion comments while a discussion germane to that site is ongoing is so far from the expectations of WP:LINKVIO as to be nearly inexplicable. Sure its inflammatory and stupid (the blog post), but how in the world are we making things less contentious by reaching into other comments and plucking the link out. It is there for all to see in the history and it is sure to upset the original editor (As we see above). It all just strikes me as clumsy. Refactor comments when absolutely necessary, and only when necessary. And when someone objects, try not to lecture them about civility. It only grates. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Calm it, everybody. Especially Scott (although his grievances are to my mind understandable). Site policy holds that linking to the blog post is wrong. To accord with that, any links to the blog may be summarily removed by any uninvolved editor. Durova's edit to Privatemusings' comment was a redaction. To redact is not to refactor. (But any editor whose comment is redacted should, in the interests of courtesy, be notified.) We probably should stop making such a big deal out of this. Skipping copyright is something we really can't get away with, even if—as Protonk points out—the stakes (such as those where one measly link is concerned) are low. AGK 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not that the stakes are low, it is that the purpose of our COPYRIGHT policy as it applies to links isn't remotely connected to the issue at hand. To wit, we do not allow posting of emails on wikipedia because we don't own the copyright to the material and can't release it under the GFDL. But we link to copyrighted material all the time. We link to blog posts, newspaper articles, scanned books, journal articles, etc. We have the link policy in order to proscribe linking to stolen or improperly disseminated material--torrents of movies, reposts of gated material, etc. This isn't really the case when someone emails a message to DG and he posts the message online. If DG had received a letter, scanned the letter and published the scan, we could agree that DG doesn't own the email but it isn't at all clear that he does not have the right to post it. And let's be honest with each other. We aren't removing that link because of copyright. We are removing it because it is embarrassing to us and embarrassing to david (and whoever the guy was who sent david the email). LINKVIO is being used as a fig leaf, just as it would be if I posted a link to copies of the functionaries mailing list. As for the semantics of redaction/refactoring, fine. It's not refactoring. The point remains that editing someone else's comments is needlessly upsetting. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what I said. Changed to "Skipping copyright" for clarity. AGK 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Wait I'm confused. What part of what I said is what you said? :) Protonk (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
        • This first arose in the context of this post by an account whose past missives included this and which was indeffed shortly afterward for disruption. I posted a policy note onsite with the delink.[56] Afterward two more people reproduced the link in their own posts. The definitions of fair use may differ somewhat in the UK and US; the individual in question is highly litigious and US case law has the Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service precedent: WMF servers are governed by different laws than David Gerard's blog. So it appeared prudent to delink. The intent was neither to silence discussion nor to offend. Durova³⁷¹ 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Sorry, I wrote that in a rush. Actually, you said nothing like what I said… To give you a proper response: the purpose of our copyright policy is to protect copyright, in a way that accords with sensible "real-world" laws. The bottom line is that somebody's e-mail is intellectual property, which cannot be redistributed without their permission. Posting that e-mail on a blog isn't disastrous, but it's still a copyright violation. (Here I refer to the usual committee findings on copyright, e-mails, and such: Durova and Hkelkar. Arbitration findings aren't gospel, but those ones do summarise quite well what our policies on copyright are.) LINKVIO simply says that any e-mail that links to a copyright violation is itself a violation. Whereas DG's blog post has been held to be a violation of WP:Copyright, Durova was therefore correct to kill the links embedded in the comments of Privatemusings, I am not Paranoid, and Scott. Killing those links shouldn't be a big deal. If it were an OTRS volunteer who did so, nobody would bat an eyelid; yet because the subject happens to be part of what some are currently calling the old guard, it's suddenly a Big Deal. It shouldn't be.

          On redaction and refactoring: I wasn't being semantic (or I at least had intentions aside from just being a pedant). The difference is important. Redaction is a necessary component of those site policies which exist to ensure Wikipedia does no harm. Refactoring is an unwelcome intrusion into another editor's comment, and is discouraged by a handful of behavioural guidelines. In other words: those who redact are doing what's needed; those who refactor are being pests. AGK 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

          • What are you saying? Are the nonsense rumors of an "old guard" actually carrying that much clout? Please open the window so the smoke and mirrors can get out. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. - Sigmund Freud Durova³⁷¹ 23:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AGK, with due respect, that's nonsense. It's widely held nonsense, which you didn't originate, and are repeating in good faith - but still, nonsense. Of course the composer of an email has a copyright over its contents (unless they are trivial, and probably excluding the headers); at the same time, of course the recipient of the email has a right to discuss it, and hence a fair use right to reproduce those parts of the email needed for discussion - and there's no way an unsolicited communication can carry any duty not to exercise those rights. To say otherwise is nonsense. It may be that reproducing such communications is harmful, but it's not a copyright infringement, and linking to such communications is not in any case the same thing as offering Guaranteed Free Working Photoshop Download Links!!!!! or the like; at most, it expands an already existing privacy problem. Pretending that it is the same thing harms the project by inducing editors to censor others' comments, and by inducing them to feel a sense of moral immediacy about it that isn't warranted and can lead to serious disruption. David Gerard's comments were already made and cannot be avoided or undone - but the potential harm of editors patrolling the wiki for comments to alter can be mostly avoided, by simply avoiding it. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me; do you have a source for your interpretation? What was reproduced was not excerpts but the email in its entirety including headers. I have no idea what UK case law precedent is regarding fair use, but the writing program I took in graduate school included a course in relevant law for Yanks. It does not make me a lawyer, so take this at face value: reproducing a text in its entirety is the sort of thing we were advised against doing, for our own protection, because it is usually regarded as copyright infringement when put to the test. The blog post itself is easy enough to find; no suppression occured. And if that's suppression I was equally guilty of "suppressing" when my own interests would have been abundantly served by openness: earlier this year Wikileaker leaked an ArbCom mailing list thread where several arbitrators discussed sanctions on me before the Durova case was filed. Leaked logs available at Wikitruth--but I delinked 'em here. A principle is the thing one acts upon regardless of personal interest. More sources, please, and less soapboxing. Durova³⁷¹ 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Headers are definitely not copyrightable - they're the equivalent of a postmark someone has applied to your postal letter in transit. And the onus here is on you, the person advancing a novel theory of law to censor other people's comments, to defend the legal principle you are advancing. Are you aware of any case where a US court (the only ones we need concern ourselves with) found that linking to a copy of an unsolicited email was "contributory infringement"? As I say, it may well be harmful - but using the ten-pound bludgeon of copyright policy to justify interfering with that harm causes more harm here, and based on no sound legal theory, but only on a hope that copyright justifications will scare people off of questioning it. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The onus of WP:COPYVIO is a proactive one to demonstrate that material is permissible. We do not retain random photographs of supermodels until someone proves absatively, posilutely that they were scanned from a magazine. Nor do we start from the presumption that John Doe approved and endorsed the entire republication of his email for the purpose of calling himself a waste of skin. Still waiting for sources, nudging the soapbox toward the back of the grocery store There is nothing actionable here; policy debates should be conducted at policy talk. Requesting a curtain call for this drama. Durova³⁷¹ 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we can let this go here. We disagree, that's all. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When you send an e-mail to someone, it becomes theirs; no copyright or any other right is retained by the sender after it is sent. The contents can certainly run into issues of copyright, but you're claiming that the e-mail in itself is protected, and that is simply untrue. Not sure where a link to the inevitable "source please?" queries can be found offhand, as it is (not being intentionally snarky here) simply a pretty common-sense understanding of copyright and the internet. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"When you receive an email message, remember that you do not own the copyright; that is owned by the sender, or the sender's employer." NW (Talk) 02:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is wrong, NuclearWarfare is right, but neither is especially relevant as what appears to be the issue is David Gerard using his privileged information to taunt someone (albeit someone who pretty much begs for such treatment). That's how I see it, anyway. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I'm not. It is a largely untested and hypothetical area of copyright law, as it is generally far too trivial a thing to actually litigate over. So all you will find online are opinions of mnusings. If you're going to aergue that there's an automatic presumption of "all e-mail is copyrighted by the sender", that is where I will tell you that you are wrong. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

< (for the archives really) - the related thread over at the 'clerks noticeboard' was closed (and 'removed for sanity's sake ;-) - concluding '....Consensus is that the link was not a copyvio....' - respectfully requesting closure of thread, less trump card rationales which turn out to be mistakes, and several nicely chilled beers. Privatemusings (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) one out of three 'ain't bad, especially when it's the last one.......

May I ask why this thread isn't archived and/or tagged "resolved" yet? PM and Durova have both requested it, so why not do it? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can close it now, but why didn't you do it? Protonk (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Russian Club Fire

Resolved

 – Moot. Article was "speedy kept" at Articles for Deletion discussion

The article Perm Lame Horse club fire is currently being considered for deletion here and it is in the news. Any ideas on whether this should remain on the main page. The nominator is also starting to accuse me of things such as blaming others when I only blamed myself. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rutherford appears to be rather disgruntled that an article he has edited has been nominated for deletion and is hoping that he will attract attention (and more keep !votes) by talking about it here. ANI is not the place to discuss this; Template talk:In the news is. Bravedog (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, I don't really give a crap whether it stays or goes. I am only trying to see that it gets a fair deletion review. I am in no way canvassing for support here, I just wanted to bring up the issue of the ITN question on the page. We can bring it there then so that it can get its fair share of talk. On an unrelated note, this article seems to already have gone through an AFD today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the article never went through an AFD. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What made you think it had? Bravedog (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there was a template that said that it did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the Fat Man allowed to edit?

Resolved

 – IP unblocked. User is welcome to use regular account for constructive editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an established editor, active since 2006, with many thousands of edits. I became bored and engaged in some silly, run-on-the-mill vandalism using my anonymous IP address. I repeated the offense several times. My IP address was hard-blocked--with good reason--for several months by Luna Santin. I was not even allowed to edit my talk pages.

I wrote to Luna Santin, advising him that I could easily reset my modem and get a new IP address in order to post (constructive) edits using my main account. However, I hesitated to do this, because I do not know if this would be considered "block evasion." I also pledged to discontinue all vandalism.

He chose not to respond to my request or my pledge (it's been several weeks now).

My main account, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, is not blocked, so I have now reset my modem.

Am I guilty of "block evasion" now that I have moved to a different IP? The blocking admin ignored any attempts at communication. I could not request unblock using the template, because I was blocked from editing my own talk page.

Please advise whether I am allowed to edit (as long I don't vandalize), or whether I should be blocked or banned.

ip address that I used for vandalism and was (and still is) blocked: 69.114.165.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if anyone cares, before I was blocked, I created a sockpuppet called WatchingWales, as a tribute to David Shankbone. This account was used mainly for vandalism and silliness and was blocked indefinitely. I have an alternate account called The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later. This account is used for silliness, but not for vandalism or sockpuppetry. I will continue to use the TFMWLBRASWL account, albeit infrequently.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ask Luna (on en.wp, not over email) to lift the block? I can give you the "the person is blocked not the address" speech if you like, but you know the answer. You run the risk of being blocked again for block evasion, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I last reached out to him on his talk page on November 25; he completely ignored me, just as he ignored my email. I don't buy your "person is blocked not the address" line; if the person is blocked, why did he not block the TFMWNCB account when he knew perfectly well this is my primary account? In fact, when my IP was initially blocked for 3 months (but before the hard block was in place), I asked him via wiki and via email to post a note on TFMWNCB's user and/or talk page explaining why the user is blocked, but he ignored that request as well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to get all worked up. Luna hasn't edited since the 19th, so "ignored" is the wrong word. Sorry that I didn't notice you edited the talk page as well. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I neeed to get worked up. Yes, Luna is ignoring me. He is reading and responding to his email, just not to mine.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? Why are you doing this? —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Because I would like to make a few edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Durova³⁷¹ 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just dumb. Who runs the unblock mailing list? Why, Mr. Luna Santin. In my limited experience, he is not the most communicative fellow.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it's only fair if the community does one of two things: A) accept my pledge not to vandalize and allow me to edit, even on a trial basis or B) block or ban my main account with a full explanation on my user page explaining the rationale for the ban.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the community almost always accepts repentant vandals who have promise to turn their backs on disruption and only work to benefit the encyclopedia. We would much rather have you work with us than against us. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, unblock-l is thatta way, and can help in this sort of situation. And it would be equally fair for us, in our collective (lack of) wisdom, to not buy your pledge, and play whack-a-mole with you for block evasion. Sometimes things that are silly and a little bit absurd are also fair.

At any rate, lets take Fat Man at his word.--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Durova about the unblock mailing list above?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The impression I've been given (I'll admit to not checking it out, as mailing lists are really overrated) is that no one actually *runs* the list, and even if one did, there would be more eyes watching than Luna Santin, and it is my experience that in the aggregate, Wikipedia will always have someone fair minded and conscientious to post a review request to the administrator's noticeboard of your choice on your behalf, at your request. I'm not saying thats the only way to do it, of course, but it is probably one of the better ones.--Tznkai (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no block on the main account, I would say that this editor is not blocked in the first place, and therefore the request is strictly speaking unnecessary -- it does show good will though. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I view things as well; however, I must be cautious and would like to preclude anyone crying "block evasion" once they see me editing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The aggressive tone both at this thread and here raises doubts. It doesn't cut much ice to ask the community for feedback and then snipe at the individuals who give it. Durova³⁷¹ 03:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't promise to be nice to the AN- and ANI-dwelling busybodies. My disdain for your like is well documented. I do, however, promise to give up my vandalism. As for you, Durova, you should be more receptive to constructive criticism. I can mentor you, if you like.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When constructive criticism is forthcoming it is well received (on this end). Perhaps, when one's personal animosity is very close to the surface, it would be better to say less. If not as a measure of consideration for the other party then out of self-interest--when one's own fitness to edit is under scrutiny it is unwise to add to existing doubts. Durova³⁷¹ 04:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that self-interest is overrated; abject self-absorption is more my speed. And don't flatter yourself by projecting any "personal animosity" into my barbs. My animosity (mild scorn would be more accurate) toward ANI-dwellers couldn't be any more impersonal. Nor did I ever aspire to any level of "fitness to edit" (the term itself is laughable, considering the haphazard assembly of amateurs, children and ne'er-do-wells we call "volunteers"), even before I was blocked. I merely wished to determine whether I was prohibited from editing, given my past antics and the block status of my IP. Your advice is like swine cast before pearls. Feh. I am a repentant vandal. I do not repent of my distaste for 2007-style wikibusybodies. That is all I wish to say of this matter, as I hope to retire from appearing in AN and ANI threads in any cacpacity. Finally, if you'd like me to adopt you, my offer still stands. I would never make such an offer tp an enemy. Luv, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the misread: you actually stated My disdain for your like is well documented. That is not actually an expression of personal disdain for an individual, although your advice is like swine cast before pearls edges closer to personal attack. Whatever the case, I am not impressed by people who seek honest feedback and act offended when they receive it. Certainly not interested in adoption from a person who engages in habitual rudeness; this block log is not something most users would wish to emulate. Durova³⁷¹ 18:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm only habitually "rude" to the habitually misinformed. 2 of the three listings in that block log were outright mistakes by careless administrators who mistook me for a sockpuppet (hmmmm.....sound familiar?) three years ago. The third was overturned by the blocking admin less than 24 hours into the block. Don't bear false witness against thy neighbor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Is he paying twice what we pay, seeing how he takes up two seats? --NE2 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FMWNCB, I'll unblock your IP in a minute, so that you are free to edit constructively without any potential accusations of block-evasion. I hope you'll reciprocate the good faith with all editors, and not let this unblock turn into egg on my face. Welcome back! Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank ye, kind sir. I will not disappoint.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remember Abecedare as a sensible type! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)