Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved.

Backlog seems to be building up a bit if anyone wants to take a look. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP 24.77.204.120

I am concerned about the attitude of 24.77.204.120. This user is badmouthing me about article Gliese 581 c. This user is threatening me with the WP:3RR (witch does not mention anything about IP user edits). I am simply requesting that you talk with this user or watch him for his actions, because I wish to now stay away from this situation because I was not aware of my actions and now wish to avoid any more conflict from it. — NuclearVacuum 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else, IP edits are the same as logged in users, we don't discriminate against anonymous users. John Reaves 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Voldemore keeps recreating copyrighted, previously deleted content

Resolved.

As contributor has returned to editing but not addressed this further, the subpage has been deleted by WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps copy and pasting copyright violating text from www.scifi.com. The article Project Quicksilver has been deleted 4 times, so Voldemore has now recreated it as a userpage at User:Voldemore/Project Quicksilver and linked directly to that userpage from the The Invisible Man (2000 TV series) in a blatant attempt to run-around the deletions. (The text was copied from http://www.scifi.com/invisibleman/classified/index.html, when that url was working). I assume copyright still applies to userspace pages? 92.0.72.79 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior deletion reasons don't mention copyright problems; it's true that a bot once marked the article as a potential copyvio, but absent evidence to the contrary, it currently looks to me like the off-wiki copy may have been the violation -- care to elaborate on that? That said, linking to userspace in that fashion doesn't sound acceptable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the note Voldemore left at the now deleted talk page, "The information presented in the article is actually taken from the official site of the Invisible Man television show." The archived versions of the sci fi channel seem to confirm that, noting that this is identical to text in the article. It seems like copyright violation may be a real concern here, even if the article was deleted for other reasons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just an additional note that I have blanked the user subpage pending resolution of this. I believe it should be a speediable copyvio, but review of the material through the history may be useful to this discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I put a link to the information to be helpful. It's so informative I know that a lot of fans of the television show would appreciat it. I was just trying to do something nice! But since this anonymous contributor is having such a hissy fit over it, I won't put a link to my userspace in that manner every again. -- Voldemore (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of redirecting to userspace from mainspace, even if the official page has been removed from the internet, copyrighted material cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. As this material comes from the official website, it will almost certainly need to be deleted unless there is some proof of that permission. It isn't likely that the official site borrowed the material from Wikipedia. Fans might indeed find it very interesting, but there are serious legal concerns here. I'd suggest that you read over Wikipedia:Copyrights and consider tagging the subpage {{db-u1}} to request its removal from Wikipedia. Otherwise, as this conversation wraps, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G12. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The link works fine for me. (although it is slower than crap) Here is a screenshot. Now you can do your duty ;) J.delanoygabsadds 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood what is going on here? Sorry, now I'm confused. J.delanoygabsadds 14:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not holding off on deletion because I doubt it is a valid G12. :) The immediate danger of displaying a copyvio is taken care of by the blanking. I didn't want to delete the subpage in the middle of a discussion about it, as it's a lot easier for other contributors to this discussion to understand the issue if it's still tucked away in history. My note above is simply a courtesy in letting the contributor know that he does have the option to have it deleted by request rather than as a "G12". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, in lieu of copyright vios, you can always link to the old pages from the Wayback machine to provide users that resource. --MASEM 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunately, the problem is behavior and not merely content

Resolved. administrator attention not required
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I don't think the above issue (Nasty Discussion) has truly been resolved. First, please note that this is far from the first case where TreasuryTag has been accused of bad behavior. It's not even the first case of such an accusation being brought to administrative attention this week.[1]

I think this situation needs more than just a "let's cool down, guys" response. These diffs speak for themselves; signs of an attitude of ownership, dismissive and rude behavior, an apparent belief that he is the ultimate arbiter of how policy should be applied, etc. [2][3][4] [5][6] He's even gone so far as to edit war(several reverts in a 24 hour period[7][8][9]), even after a warning about edit warring[10], the result of which was a 7 day lockdown on the article[11].

Meanwhile, his appeal here, and the resulting administrative response, is a tacit approval of his actions: he plays unfairly yet calls "foul" on others, his own offenses obscured by accusations. My question: is it appropriate for a user to act this way and have it go unnoticed? Shouldn't some action be taken, in light of all this, to prevent history repeating itself?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He does not need anyhting. Stop trying to get editors into trouble and take part in the discussion on the talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Phoenix, replying to Mael-Num) The discussion had become heated, and you haven't been precisely a cool head either. If neither of you has any truly Bad Stuff to show, I suggest you both cool off and let it be. I made an informal recommendation there, which you seemed to have agreed with; also, Steve Crossin has offered to help and personally mediate the whole thing. I think that should be enough. Oh, and please also note that TreasuryTag didn't make any formal complaint against you above, I don't think you should take it personal. --Gutza T T+ 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely you can't be serious...those 8 links aren't "truly" bad stuff? When does it get "truly" bad...does he need to come to my house and smash my computer over my head?
And no one's making anything personal. His edit warring was with other people, I pointed out other people have a conflict with him. Maybe you should reevaluate your take on this?

Mael-Num (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting in my talk page that I haven't looked into it -- yes, I have. --Gutza T T+ 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Then allow others to do so, please. This is an issue I am not taking lightly. Your comments indicate that you believe this is a content issue, but none of my complaints have to do with content. Please reread what I wrote, and take a look at some of the "bad stuff" I've linked to. Mael-Num (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, my comments indicate no such thing -- I was talking precisely about attitude, cool heads and Bad Stuff. As such, I would like an explanation for your reopening this matter. --Gutza T T+ 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it should stay resolved. This is not an administrative matter, it's a content dispute I've said I'll handle. Look at the talk page of the article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, Steve, this isn't a content dispute. You're confusing the issue. Read my complaint, above.
I also made the point that since the balance of opinion is 2editors/4editors+2admins, it would appear that a workakble consensus has been formed. The 4editors+2admins seem to agree on the deletion of the info in question, and any further discussion between the parties (unless someone new comes along) will be frictive and un-necessary. This seems to be the route involving the least further communication, thus the least drama. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a content dispute, and moreover, I haven't even posted an argument there yet. Thanks for making my case for me. Mael-Num (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Mael-Num, you disagree with TreasuryTag's editing and about his views on the content dispute—this is clearly not a case that needs Administrator attention. I would prefer that you comment on the talk page of the article in question, and if you have a problem with TreasuryTag to take it up on his talk page. Please take this into consideration, Malinaccier (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do disagree on what content to add, but that is an entirely separate issue. None of my complaints, above, have to do with content, save the example of edit-warring back and forth yesterday. Even then, the complaint isn't the content itself, but the behavior surrounding it. Mael-Num (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Content disputes commonly have tenacious editing in them, incivility, edit warring, I've seen it many times in content disputes. I still fail to see how this requires more than a mediator, where administrative intervention (other than page protection), is required here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I appreciate your help in resolving the content problem. However, this editor has a history of tenacious editing, to borrow your words [12]. There also seems to be a trend of his going to AN/I or AN to complain about others during such disputes[13], which is wasteful of admin resources, and I think is a bad habit to allow, as it can surely intimidate other users into non-participation in Doctor Who related articles. Please also note that TreasuryTag's complaint that I cited was apparently in response to this[14], when another editor called for admin assistance in yet another conflict with TreasuryTag. TT's apparent modus operandi is to "take things personal", to borrow again from a fellow editor.Mael-Num (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Mael, are you openly stating, on the record, that (including striking out another user's conribution) you have behaved in an exemplary manner, not being remotely tenacious, disruptive, incivil, picky, assuming bad faith, and that you have acted soley in a manner constructive to useful discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are you attempting to shift the blame to me? Are you saying that I have no basis for complaint? Perhaps you should first answer your own question, now that you are here. Mael-Num (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This may have become a behviour problem

In watching this conversation unfold it needs to be pointed out that Mael-Num has made the following entries. With this entry [15] Mael-Num attempted to delete an entry by Treasury Tag. Later with this entry [16] He added the strike through line to the same entry. No reason for either of these actions was given in the edit summaries. Even if they were altering other editors discussions should not occur. Later still M-N made this edit [17] altering the content of their own entry. This behaviour shows a lack of understanding about what is entailed in being a member of the wikipedia community. To take such actions in an ongoing content dispute makes it very hard to AGF in the continuing conversations. Perhaps warnings should be given but, as I am a part of the dispute, it is not my place to post them. Perhaps others will feel differently but I feel that this should be brought to someone's attention. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can retract whatever I'd like in my own writing. I can't edit my own stuff? Mael-Num (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators- To you

  • I have a simple request, with a simple reasoning. Can this discussion be closed. I am handling the content dispute, I see some disruptive editing, uncivil behaviour, yes. But most content disputes have these to some degree. I, personally can ask for adminsitrator intervention if it's really necessary, but at this time, I feel that administrator intervention is not required here. If you feel otherwise, feel free, but I'd appreciate it if this thread be closed. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocking and any other administrative measures serve a preventative, not a punitive purpose. If the matter is being resolved and there is nothing to prevent, then there is no need for action. I've seen Steve's work elsewhere and am happy to leave this one to his judgement. Orderinchaos 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Umm.....

Resolved. Message left explaining that I am not really an ageless immortal, regardless of what my userpage says :P J.delanoygabsadds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neoonyxalchemist just made this post on my talk page. I replied and then started looking at the other posts on his talk page. Then I looked at his userpage. I came straight here. Although his idea is a little strange, that is not what worries me. Look at what he says about me. How should I deal with this? J.delanoygabsadds 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Over-eager yungin. Say thank you and give him a welcome template :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a note trying to explain that I am a mortal human :) Sorry, stuff like that just freaks me out. *shudder* I thought I was being scrutinized. I obviously am. What I was not aware of was that I was being worshiped.... J.delanoygabsadds 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It must have been your original sig--the blinding orange mesmerized him and made him your acolyte forever. Good thing you changed it, or there'd be armies of J.delanoy-worshipping zombie-warriors overrunning the wiki and cutting everyone down as vandals. (wink) Gladys J Cortez 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AWB/CP

I know it hasn't been long, but could an admin please check AWB/CP. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Make that a technically inclined admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (sound of rapidly retreating footsteps)
Y Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need more eyes on an AfD

There is a non-notable band, Profound Intent, who are very insistent in getting their material onto Wikipedia, and have caused numerous issues where they constantly recreate deleted material over months.

Here's some of the (now deleted) articles that have been created by them, and deleted that are either directly related to them, or would coatrack them (for example, their albums, their members, their record company, etcetera)

Profound Intent (Deleted 6 times, currently salted)
South Capitol Recordings (Deleted 3 times)
Work It (Profound Intent song) (Deleted One Time)
Profound Intent (band) (Deleted 3 times, salted)
Street Profanity (band) (Deleted once,salted) (Band members from Profound Intent)
LaPret (Deleted TEN times) (Band member of Profound Intent)
Let's Get Krunk (Deleted three times) (Song by Profound Intent)
Still Profound (EP) (Deleted once)

This is not a comprehensive list of all their attempts to get Wikipedia, this is only what I have deleted or found on a quick search. Now, the latest one to pop up is at AfD

Get 2 Know Us (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm tempted to G4 the whole thing, but there is a number of possible Single Purpose Accounts disrupting the AFD on this article and making accusations of one and all. Could someone who is neutral in this whole thing look at the editors and determine if there is SPA's involved? (I wouldn't complain either way if the AfD is allowed to run all five days, or just simply G4'd as yet another spamfest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scythed as blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and salted LaPret; after 10 creates/deletes, it's fairly obvious that he doesn't belong here. Some of the others may be candidates for salting as well. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse copyvio: when WP articles get deleted due to a website stealing wiki content.

I just want to post a note reminding everyone that, when checking for copyvio, please make sure that the website itself is not a uncredited/unacknowledged wikipedia mirror.

The example I'll cite here is this: http://www.banglavasha.com/ . This site blatantly copies Wikipedia content and images without acknowledging the source articles/WP. However, sometimes people are mistaking it to be the source, and the corresponding wikipedia articles to be copies!!

Just today, the article Kabi_Nazrul_Government_College was deleted as a suspected copyvio of this. (King_of_Hearts has since restored it following a note from me). However, I have looked into many other articles from the site, and they are in most cases verbatim copies of WP articles (with just a sentence added at the top).

An example is Dhaka Central Jail, (corresponding page at the site: [18]). I quickly spotted the copy made by the site, as the photo of Dhaka central Jail from commons was taken by me, and I also wrote most of the article. Another example is Khan Mohammad Mridha Mosque (corresponding page [19]). This site has plagiarized the entire article and all the photos (which I had taken for Wikipedia on December 22, 2006 during a photo shoot with other Wikipedians in Bangladesh)..


So, before any other WP article is suspected to be a copyvio of this pirate site, please take a closer look. Please do check which one is the copy .... in this case, it is the *site* which is doing copyvio, not Wikipedia ...

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged a lot of copyvios over the years. I have run into this same problem a few times, but it is generally straightforward to tell from the organic nature of the article edit history which is the copy (in most cases, Wikipedia is the one in violation, generally via straight cut&paste). Quatloo (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. WP:MIRROR has a list of such mirrors. King of Hearts has added this one there now, but in general, when checking/tagging copyvios, such problems might occur. So, we'd have to be careful about this. --Ragib (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User Coren doesn't seem to give a shit whether his copyvio bot highlights a mirror or not, and neither does anyone else. Is he even in control of his bot? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be incredibly difficult to check for that. Even regular administrators, such as myself, have made mistakes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have a way to code it so that it does, I'm sure he'd love to hear it. shoy 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Coren's bot only searches new pages and compares the text to a Google search, so the only way the bot would pick up on a mirror is if someone wrote the article, a mirror updated (or its a live mirror, which is technically forbidden), and Google updated their search results, all in the space of about a minute. The bot also allows for whitelisting of sites. You're more than welcome to ask Coren about it though instead of just complaining. Mr.Z-man 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, Mick, I think everyone here knows how you feel about...well, everything, since I don't believe I've ever seen you make ANY attempt to moderate your opinions or the words with which you express them. The above comment adds no useful content--no insight on the situation, no viable question, just snarky rhetoric and a personal attack on a bot operator--and thus serves no purpose in this discussion. I suggest you refactor, and perhaps in the future you might, BEFORE you start typing, ask yourself "Of what utility to the discussion is this comment? Does it advance the conversation, or is it just a means for me to vent my opinions?" (I've kept this thought to myself for a long time, but your last remark was so devoid of useful purpose as to make my continued silence impossible.)Gladys J Cortez 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I usually use "The WayBackMachine" at Archive.org to check for the first appearance of content which is suspected to be copyvio. Of course, not everything is there - but if the external page in question has a copy on archive.org which is older than our page.. it's a useful clue.. --Versageek 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sheepnacidadegrande (talk - contributions)

What should be done with this user? I believe he acts in good faith; he is extremely active but the quality of his edits are questionable at most. A ton of original research; and an incredible amount of images without source (mainly album covers that would otherwise be under fair-use), but nonetheless, quite disruptive for editors like me that are into music and forced to be on constant "clean-up mode". So what should be done? Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well the first thing is to notify the editor about this post (which I've done). Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I doubt that will any useful. If he didn't bother doing anything about his 50+ warnings, then...anyway, I got to know him through his edits on Eminem-related articles. He pretty much goes with no reliable citations, constantly creates bootlegs and also adds spam-like links reading Buy on Amazon.com. And does it all ignoring everyone and at an extremely fast pace. I nominated 2 of the bootlegs he created for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lullaby_Versions_of_Eminem and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raw_and_Uncutt. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

There's a backlog of images ready to be deleted at Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons ready for deletion. SpencerT♦C 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If MetsBot is 100% accurate, couldn't we just go for a batch deletion using WP:TW? Alex Muller 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I picked one at random, Image:Fishriver_nambia.jpg. The duplicate at commons is under a different name commons:image:Visrivier (Fish river) Nambia.jpg. So deleting the one here will screw the article Fish River (Namibia). --Stephen 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
MetsBot isn't completely accurate, no - I've seen it make several mistakes on the reverse, highlighting an image to say doesn't meet all deletion criteria when it actually does. Even with a so-called "perfect" bot, human eyes still need to act as a double-check to avoid issues. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of images left, but thanks to whoever was cleaning it out. SpencerT♦C 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin to delete page

Resolved.

There is a discussion about the deltion of BME Pain Olympics Final Round located here. It has been up for a week, and it has three people asking for it's deletion. I think it is time to delete the page, so if an admin could come by and close it, that'd be great. --PlasmaTwa2 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of blocks

I just blocked Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely for edits like this and for being sockpuppets of each other. However because they both did this I would like a review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you don't think this is a COI? John Reaves 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. If they'd had chances, they blew WP:AGF forever with that last diff. --Rodhullandemu 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, no worries. --Gutza T T+ 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
John Reaves, I thought it common sense but I got an email from an admin before when I had blocked another editor who was doing the same thing across several talk/user pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that admin might need a good trout slap then. If you see an attack vandal, block them. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. You have to go with your instincts for the benefit of the encyclopedia first (remember the readers? How many people do?), apply policy (remembering WP:IAR is there for a reason) and pick up the pieces later, if necessary. I may be a Category:Rouge admin in spirit, but it works for me. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That an admin felt the need to email instead of posting their comments on a public board speaks volumes. Might you be interested in adopting my caveat? It could reduce the amount of off-wiki comment to you, if that is a problem.LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe your caveat is acceptable within our privacy policy, and recall somebody being forced to remove such a caveat once before. - auburnpilot talk 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been previously discussed, and while some disliked it it was permitted (a couple of people have even adopted it) and it has been in place for six months now. Some people who have mailed me have requested clarification, but none have not ultimately emailed me. No email has yet been divulged. If you wish to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but I think it should be a separate thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about me. I just won't email you or anybody else who doesn't respect the privacy of private communication. There are plenty of other admins and editors. - auburnpilot talk 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy, I wonder if LessHeard could change his caveat. Instead of saying 'I won't hold your message confidential', he could say, 'I won't take action on any complaint that is submitted to me only by email.' You could coax the emailer to rephrase his problem and post it in some form on the wiki. (If they are unwilling to do that, ask them to write to Arbcom). When I see admins doing unexpected things, I sometimes wonder if they've received an email about something that I don't know about. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious what privacy policy you think LHvU's notice conflicts with. Risker (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure if it is written in policy somewhere (too many policy pages these days), but it was a principle of the Durova Arbcom case that private correspondence should not be posted without permission from the author. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It was precisely that matter which lead me to create the caveat, permission to disseminate is implicit when contacting me via email; that is what the wording means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, what's next: "By commenting on this talk page, you agree that I may attack you in any way I see fit"? It may not violate the letter of any policy, but anyone can see how such a caveat isn't right. Implicit agreement to waive privacy is unjustifiable; it must be explicit from the author of the email. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have posted on EdJohnston's talkpage suggesting opening a dialogue on this matter, with a view to consolidating practice into a guideline. Your participation is likely to be useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I recently saw an arbcom case that made it clear that if someone insults you then you should not block them, then again I think that is a load of shit. Good block! 1 != 2 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: The preceding comment was pure smartassery and should not be taken seriously.
Risker is correct that the policy is not settled. Instead of "To avoid conflicting with Wikipedia policy..." I would say "To avoid criticism by editors who are concerned about the privacy of email correspondence..." EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting further administrative opinion

Yesterday, I protected the Barack Obama article due to edit warring. Looking at the talk page, it is quite clear that efforts have gone on by various parties to judge consensus on this issue, but such consensus is certainly not clear in regards as to what material should be included/excluded, from what I can see. Today, one of the parties approached me and informed me that there was consensus here, but this is not apparent in my eyes. I do not really feel comfortable with bringing conclusion to this issue without the input of others, due to size and scale of the issue. I therefore would be very grateful for further opinions on this matter and what steps of action should be taken. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that it is this diff that is the source of most of the dispute: [20]. As one notes, it concerns a living person, but is not referenced to reliable exterior sources, so, by policy, it should likely not be included until reliable sources can be found. That is the line of action policy dictates, from what I can see. Therefore, I personally am tending towards the unprotection of the article, with the addition of a warning concerning BLP and relating consequences on the talk page. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like, based on further developments, that you've determined after all this is not a good time to unprotect. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had originally thought that the problem regarded BLP solely, and that policy could keep the edit warriors inline and stop an edit war that didn't need to happen. But it seems I was not entirely correct in that assumption, and that the war is actually much bigger than the simple BLP violation here. I have pointed them in the way of WP:DISPUTE. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now the article is semi-protected. It should remain semi-protected for sometime. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using fullprot to protect long-distance (but non-crystal ball) future work redirects

Commonly for video games, when any news of a sequel comes out, someone rushes to create a page for it, regardless of how reliable the source is. In some cases, it's from the developers directly, so a page for it makes sense, but ofttimes its a reliable source speaking of rumors or a word or two from a developer interview. In the latter case, it makes sense that the sequel should be discussed, but a full page for it is overkill, particularly for more popular games which then attract rumors. Redirections make sense (eg, see GTA V) to point back to a series or game article where a better discussion of the little news about the sequel can be made easily, though these redirects are often the target of newer editors that want to add their "super secret" information which is usually not reliable.

So the question is: is it reasonable to create such redirects for long-distance future works and get full prot on them, then when more news is there, requesting dropping the protection in order to expand the article? --MASEM 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Preemptive protection does not assume good faith and degrades the principle that anyone should be able to edit. If and only if there is evidence of disruption through any particular redirect can protection be justified for that redirect. If there is good reasoning to suggest that a page could only be made in bad faith, however, an exception would be acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. --MASEM 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Backlog

Since we're tasking tonight, and CSD appears quiet, would some admins be available to assist in closing out some old Category for Discussion discussions? We have some approaching 1 month old. The list can be found at WP:CFD. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly threatening statement?

Resolved.

This article is nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently somebody took it kind of personally. TN‑X-Man 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let me know if this is the correct forum for addressing these concerns. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a fine place - possible /Incidents if we're being picky, but no problem. In this case, I'd suggest there's nothing that can be done. It's a threat, but they aren't going to do anything about it, and neither can we really... Alex Muller 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The article has been deleted and the user blocked, so the issue is probably done and done. Thanks for the info. TN‑X-Man 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I shouldn't laugh, but I did. Orderinchaos 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Admins

I would like to bring attention to this meta proposal to create a new user right that would be admins on every project, though their use would be restricted on large wikis, such as this, by policy (but not on a technical level). Prodego talk 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • From memory, I think there is a difference to the Anti-Vandal fighter and what would constituite a global admin, if I'm not mistaken. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no access level difference, they have all admin rights. In fact, they are changing the name to "global sysop" as opposed to AVF. Prodego talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage. Daniel (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy checkers needed. Jumbo backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Someone reported a huge number of possible open proxies to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Could some people with proxy-checking skills help? I can only check web proxies. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restricting the "move subpages" feature to admins

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict the "move subpages" feature to admins may be of interest. Happy‑melon 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query about the Tango (drink) article

Not sure this is the right place - but when I click on the Tango (drink) link, I get a message asking me if I would like to save something, instead of going to the article. Any ideas why? --204.4.131.140 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tango (drink). Works fine for me :/ J.delanoygabsadds 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you typed it correctly? J.delanoygabsadds 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Try WP:VPT. ffm

[edit] 1 year schoolblock - 24.244.192.130

Resolved.

This school IP has already been blocked three times for 6 months, I've now blocked for 1 year. xenocidic (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I wasn't far behind you. None of the June edits were of any use at all. Endorse. BencherliteTalk 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also endorse. Looks perfectly reasonable (and unfortunate). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me...marking thread as resolved. Tiptoety talk 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting blocks

What happens when two admins block an IP address at the same time? - [21]. Corvus cornixtalk 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting glitch, its a good thing that both of them were thinking the same thing, now what would happen if the block lengths were different? would the blocks cancel each other? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The block would be lifted with the expiry of the earlier of the two blocks, i.e. if one blocked for 1 hour and one blocked for 3 hours, the block is lifted after 1 hour. Leithp 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawpery

Can someone tell me: are these all TOR exit nodes? And should they be blocked accordingly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of those (in a check) were US residential IP addresses. In other words, a Zerg rush.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)