User talk:Frank/Archive 9

Karmaisking checkuser

I'm not sure how the CheckUser works, but if there weren't any comparisons done against User:CDODISASTER, then perhaps a comparison of the new sock (User:BallaratMines) against the technicals of that account may be useful. I think he's possibly not in his general past locale. BigK HeX (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since User:CDODISASTER was only listed as  Likely, it didn't seem appropriate to use that as the account to check against. I am as interested as anyone in stopping disruption (first) and preventing it (second), but I'm not going to brand accounts as socks without being reasonably sure. It's possible, just as I found; any admin can use that along with WP:DUCK to make a block if they feel it is appropriate. And another checkuser is free to make an additional check; I would not be offended in any way if such a request was made or if it was granted.  Frank  |  talk  00:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your caution. I was about to say that a certain amount of conservatism in administrative action is very wise .... in thinking about it, if the new account (User:BallaratMines) does match User:CDODISASTER, then there is indication of a possible problem, even without a relationship to Karmaisking. The two being likely socks of each other would raise a red flag, with no need to even invoke Karmaisking's name.

On another note, there are some other accounts marked as KiK socks that I had concerns about, if you had time. BigK HeX (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The others will have to wait, as I'm only on for a minute, alas. On the other point, though, I'd say this: checkuser is about abuse, not mere sockpuppetry. I would hope a checkuser request would have been declined if not connected to KiK. What reason would there be to make such a check otherwise? (KiK is a banned user....that is a key point here.) It also has to be said that as a new checkuser, I feel a perhaps overblown sense of extra caution.  Frank  |  talk  04:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a prob. Better safe than sorry, and all that jazz. Thanks for your time. BigK HeX (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So Klassik

Even though the article has changed it is still (as far as I can tell) based on the version which was copied to wikibin, so could you please restore the history so there's attribution for the original text? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done.  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Kolczynski

Hi Frank. I see that you declined the csd A7 for Adam Kolczynski with the reason that "assertion of notability exists (published author)". While I understand that a reliable claim to notability invalidates A7, I'm puzzled to understand how the publication, just this month, of his first book can be an assertion of notability in the context of WP:AUTHOR. Wouldn't he have to have a body of published work? Or, at the very least, a particulary notable debut book? Or am I missing something? regards Jimmy Pitt talk 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Assertion is sufficient. I am not making any claim that I believe the subject of the article is, in fact, notable, but the assertion of notability is implied and sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. You may note that I nominated the book for deletion; it certainly does not appear notable. I might even have nominated the author's article for deletion, but honestly it doesn't seem sporting. If it's really not notable, it can be a community-based result rather than a heavy-handed vendetta-like rampage. (Another admin already deleted the article for the publisher.)  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that if CSDs were to be wielded "as a blunt instrument instead of as a scalpel" that it would be to the detriment of the Wikipedia as a whole. In pulling weeds, I like to know what I'm pulling up, so I often leave a dicot to grow a little more until I know it is an incipient elm. For me, first time authors without other assertion of notability are elms, but I agree that it is a grey distinction, and that it is better to err on the nobler side. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, do you find elms to be good or bad? :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In my garden elms are a weed, like unsubstantiated music bands and disguised promotional articles in the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a shame. To me an elm is a majestic hardwood tree, unlike, for example, the loblolly pine so common where I live, and which I refer to as "lumber waiting to be cut down" whenever anyone listens. :-) Agree on the bands and promotional articles, for sure!  Frank  |  talk  18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:United Ireland archiving

Your clean-up at Talk:United Ireland/Archive 1 has threads, that are also on talk page. Where did you move (or delete) the content that [I manually archived], that was verified to have no duplicates. --Kslotte (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the main talk page before your note above. I took a look and removed the ones that were archived from the main page. It now has one thread; all older threads are archived to the two archive pages. The most recent thread (on the main talk page) is dated September. The next-most-recent, on Archive 2, is dated February.  Frank  |  talk  18:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Drabrh

Good call on the block, was just about to drop you a note to say that I thought that it had come to this. Smartse (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like when it comes to this, but there's never been any recognition of the disruptive behavior or even engagement on the matter. Enough people have dropped enough warnings. Enough is enough.  Frank  |  talk  19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, they only seem to have one aim here and haven't listened. Btw {{uw-soablock}} might be a more relevant blocking template. Smartse (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Close call. My reasoning was mainly disruption: continual upload of material against policy and refusal to get the point. I think it's more self-promotion than anything. I am ambivalent on changing the template; feel free.  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You overlooked User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika. Cheers. andy (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't in a rush to delete that one, but...it was a G11 for its entire existence, so I went ahead and deleted it.  Frank  |  talk  20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Frank ,
I wish to know why the page was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.52.208 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

The pages created by User:Drabrh were deleted because they did not meet criteria for inclusion in the project. In addition, there were quite a number of messages posted at User talk:Drabrh about the submissions from that account and as far as I can see, none of them was ever acknowledged. There was no discussion, no attempt to understand policies, no attempt to work with established editors to see how to contribute...in short, no attempt to become a member of the community. This is a collaborative project. Even collaboration would not necessarily have helped some of the created articles...not everything is WP:NOTABLE, simple as that.  Frank  |  talk  14:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tshirtsrock

Hi Frank, I tried posting a page about Apparel Media Group, but it got deleted because it was seen as an advertisement. I'm trying to reword the page so it's informational and educational. Any tips from my previous attempt? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshirtsrock (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Apparel Media Group after it was tagged WP:CSD#G11, meaning it was unambiguously advertising. The entire text in that article was promotional in nature and did not in any way list how the company might be considered notable, which is a requirement for all articles on Wikipedia. Also, you might try reading both WP:CORP and WP:FIRST.  Frank  |  talk  19:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I have read what you suggested and completely started over. Is there anyway I could get it "proof read" or looked over before I send it off as an official Wikipedia page? I don't want to get it deleted again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshirtsrock (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so, if you drop a note on my talk page when you've written a draft in User:Tshirtsrock/sandbox. Just make sure that you demonstrate it is notable enough per WP:CORP first and written from a neutral point of view. Smartse (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at these: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL it is unlikely to meet WP:CORP, but you are welcome to have a go. Smartse (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's in my sandbox. The alignment is a bit off, but I'm focusing on content. Thank you very much for your help! Please let me know what I can change to make it work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshirtsrock (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Like we've said, the first thing is to show it is "An organization ... that has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." as it states in WP:CORP. If it hasn't then we shouldn't have an article on it, very few companies are notable enough to have articles. It still reads like an advert as well and I'm unsure how you can know so much detail if you are not affiliated with the company. If you are then you need to read the conflict of interest guideline too. Everything in the article needs to be referenced to independent sources and currently none of it is. Smartse (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is for a school project so I'm aware of a lot of the company's ins and outs. I made changes to not have as much detail to not look like an insider. Am I close? Tshirtsrock (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is not a test bed for school projects. It's a serious encyclopedia with policies, which you aren't meeting. The first thing you need to do is demonstrate why a company formed in 2009 would be considered notable in the first place. No notability=no article. Then you need to have independent coverage in reliable sources to actually support claims to notability. Your article does have one thin reference, for a claim of industry sales, but that really has nothing to do with the company. That's like saying "There are 5 billion widgets sold each year, and ABC company sells widgets, so ABC company is notable." It doesn't work that way.  Frank  |  talk  20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time to work on this. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshirtsrock (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do so if you wish, but I'd advise you that it will be a waste of time. Maybe in 2 years the company will be notable, but it isn't at the moment. Smartse (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald

If you would even have taken the slightest glance on George H.W. Bush's talk page you would have noticed that I tried to start a topic on the talk page for Fitzgerald 16 days ago including filing a request for comment. It is a little disconcerting then to have an editor blank a well referenced section (with top quality references) and simply say "For this type of controversial claim, Talk (sic) first, WP:CONSENSUS second, edit last." I attempted at length to do this. Not one editor has commented. I would imagine after you cursorily deleted the section this won't happen. The rumors surrounding Bush and Fitzgerald were pretty major news on and off for a pretty long time. This is clearly expressed through the fact that I have many top quality sources discussing at length the Fitzgerald-Bush relationship. Unfortunately, since you are an "admin" I suppose there is not very much I can do.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't focus on me being an admin. It is not the point. The point is WP:CONSENSUS, which you don't have. Wikipedia is not about rumors. It is an encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  03:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

O.K. sorry about the admin part. But how am I supposed to get consensus when no one will discuss? I've already tried request for comment. Also, this is more then just a rumor. Did you look at my references? These are some of the top news organizations in the world with in-depth articles on the topic including quotes from insiders who knew/worked for Bush and Fitzgerald confirming the nature of the relationship. Also, their relationship during Bush's 88 and 92 election cycles was covered extensively by the media as is noted in my references. I would be happy to discuss this on Bush's talk page. It doesn't appear anyone wants to though. Without any mention of Fitzgerald it seems there is a substantial NPOV problem with Bush's page. To quote WP:UNDUE . . . "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were not within policy by a long margin; I will explain why at Talk:George H. W. Bush.  Frank  |  talk  12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_23#Jennifer_FitzgeraldI don't know if you care about weighing in on this or not but I thought I should let you know. Some users are recommending that Fitzgerald be added to GHWB's article in lieu of creating a page for Fitzgerald alone.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Frank. I will do my best to let it penetrate my hard head.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Aflunky

Hi Frank, Apparently you deleted my user page because i was advertising on it? If I wasn't supposed to leave links, I would have took them off. I hope you can get back to me on this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Aflunky 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Your user page was unambiguously advertising; taking links off it would not have solved that problem.  Frank  |  talk  14:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Costa

Hi, I just want to let you know that Caroline Costa, an article that you proposed for BLPprod, now has a reference and the prod has been removed. If you believe that this article still doesn't meet notability requirements, feel free to nominate it for a traditional prod or AfD. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...I don't read French, so it is a little hard for me to judge one way or the other. I suppose no harm is being done; I'm not especially motivated to AfD.  Frank  |  talk  04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frank. Charts in France is a website, possibly collaborative, and is not an online version of a mainstream press publication. It may therefore not meet WP:RS. All the other Ghits are either her self-published websites, fan sites, YouTube, and all the social networking sites. There was however (not listed by Google) a short mention in 2008 in a small local French newspaper. The subject was a runner up in the French version of the dozens of (This country's) got Talent TV shows - that in France is not broadcast on a mainstream TV channel (M6). She was also apparently once nominated to take part in a junior version of the Eurovision Song Contest. IMHO, the subject fails at both WP:ENT and WP:BAND. If she had won an ESC, preferably the main one, or made a gold with her first record, those would probably establish notability, but having been a contestant on a TV game or talent show does not. Apparently, she hasn't published any records yet, (first one announced for November this year) and although as a child she may be entertaining to watch and hear, she's got to go on and make a career that impacts properly and durably on the music/entertainment scene before she gets an article in Wikipedia. Son rêve n'est pas de devenir "Star", mais d'être une étoile capable de briller dans les yeux de chacun... - "Her dream is not to be (simply) a star, but to be a star that can shine brilliantly in everyone's eyes." She hasn't made it yet.--Kudpung (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis; I think it's a perfect writeup for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Costa!  Frank  |  talk  03:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll AfD PROD it then.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Frank, thanks for chiming in here. Much appreciated. BTW, if you ever need help with anything French, don't hesitate to ask, or to bounce it on to me.--Kudpung (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem chiming in - it was very clear cut, I was uninvolved, and people often change their view when they hear something from someone else. (In fact, if you go back and read my RfA, I put forth a view on consensus regarding blocking that I still believe more than two years later; to me it's basic interpersonal communications.) I've had your talk page on my watchlist since we had some discussion. I remember we disagreed somewhat and I choose not to remember why because it hardly matters. I'm glad to collaborate instead. Thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  03:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

Hi Frank, if possible I would like your help on something else. I can't close this debate formally because I'm not an admin, and in any case I'm an involved party because I voted on it. Secondly, I'm not sure that the debate was ever correctly listed by the proposer. A neutral, uninvolved admin needs to come in and close it correctly. If you could do this, fine, if you prefer not to, please nevertheless consider asking any other admin to do it. I don't care if the vote count I arrived at is wrong, but if the debate does not stop now, I will have to consider taking the proposer to a notice board at least for civility and POV or POINT pushing, and I don't really want to do that.

There is a campaign at the moment by the propser to mass rename a several English city articles because editors from another continent are claiming disambiguation primacy for their cities. A debate has raged far beyond the prescribed 7 days at Talk:Plymouth. The debate has already reached a clear consensus and needs closing. I have tallied up the consensus on the !votes, and if comments are taken into consideration, the consensus is probably even stronger. The debate is very fragmented, it started here: Talk:Plymouth#Proposed Move, and finishes with my attempted call to order here: Talk:Plymouth#Disambiguation: CONSENSUS. However, they have also started a parallel debate by reopening a much older debate at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)#Move dab page to ambiguous title where consensus also already went to Plymouth in Devon.

Similar calls for disambiguation have also been started by the same editor at talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge.

Thanks in advance for anything you can do, or any advice. --Kudpung (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man. I am already peripherally aware of this debate. It looks like climate change all over again. I will look at it, but I'll say this up front: even though as an uninvolved admin, I am supposed to be able to gauge consensus without background context on the discussion, I don't know if I have a good enough frame of reference to do so, as I am from the other side of the pond. Not having looked at the debate at all, I'm inclined to think no rename is necessary, except perhaps "Cambridge" but I really don't know. Again - I'll look, but I may remain completely silent for lack of clue.  Frank  |  talk  21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Brian Kelly/Jack Swarbrick/Declan Sullivan

In reference to: [1]

Greetings! My addition to the three pages in question was not intended to imply sole responsibility, but rather the accountability of each in the final outcome. My attempt to clarify this was "and staff," with justification for individual accountability being that both Kelly and Swarbrick held individual veto power over the day's events, were fully aware of the situation (having kept the team inside the prior day due to the same conditions and being present at the day's practice), and were ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of those involved. (To exemplify each, Ohio State Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel was quoted by media the day prior stating his concern for videographer safety, and keeping his football team indoors as a result; coach Brian Kelly is likewise quoted as saying he is responsible for the decision to play outside. The coach is likewise hired, fired, managed and monitored by the athletic director.) Regardless of any argument I can make along these lines, it is clear that both Kelly and Swarbrick are being held responsible throughout the media, with a varied range of publications criticizing their contribution to the day's events and in multiple cases calling for their dismissal. If neutrality of presentation is the sticking point, rather than the death not being notable for Wikipedia, I am more than open to it being fixed and clarified. Pyronite (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not publish original research, and we do not rewrite text from sources to suit a particular point of view. The first thing I read was "On October 27, 2010, decisions made by <insert name here> and Notre Dame staff resulted in..." which is a pretty serious violation of policy around here. Nowhere in the source does wording anything like that appear. In fact, it leads with "A strong gust of wind swept across Notre Dame's practice football field before a tower toppled, killing a student who had been videotaping the team from the tower..." which seems to me to hold the "strong gust of wind" responsible. It goes on to say "Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick promised there would be a full investigation, but did not say who was responsible for allowing the student to use the lift." That directly contradicts the sentence you put into the article, wherein you applied responsibility (or "accountability", as you put it) to individuals. Furthermore, that source writes: "It was not clear specifically who authorized Sullivan to go up in the scissor lift to videotape Wednesday's practice, but Swarbrick said it was the decision to practice outside was left up to individual programs at the university." Again, this directly contradicts naming a particular person.

Your second source is a WP:PRIMARY source - generally frowned upon - and in any case doesn't support the text it was used as a citation for.

The next source talks about storms in the area, but doesn't mention Notre Dame at all. It's not exactly a primary source, as above, but it is really quite peripheral to the individuals and the football program.

The Daily News article did not mention either individual in connection with the event. The article did support the text it was attached to, noting that Sullivan did express concern for his own safety while on the lift. That's fine as a source, but...there's nothing to indicate why it would be in a coach or AD's article, especially when neither is mentioned.

Finally, there is a quote about the winds being unremarkable, properly attributed to this source, but again, it's not at all clear it belongs in any Wikipedia article.

Given all of these points, the edits couldn't remain, and it may even be that they should be oversighted as well, but I'm not going to do that for the moment. If you wish to add material of this sort to any of the articles in question (or elsewhere), please discuss it on the talk page of the associated article first, and gain WP:CONSENSUS to do so. If you have any questions, let me know.  Frank  |  talk  18:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest people

The page is becoming stale again. Could you update it? Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 02:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, but I wonder...why can't you do it?  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I couldn't? Never mind, I will attempt it now. Thanks. Brendan (talk, contribs) 02:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done.  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Brendan (talk, contribs) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, how do I enable "Talkback" for my talk page? Because I notice it happened when you posted your message, but it doesn't happen when I leave questions on other user pages... Brendan (talk, contribs) 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

it is a manual edit; I added the template to your page in a separate edit. I did it so you would hopefully get an orange bar to alert you that I was already doing it.  Frank  |  talk  02:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Frank, but I didn't get any orange bar... Brendan (talk, contribs) 04:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get anything telling you there was a new message on your talk page when I left the {{tb}} template there?  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I think I did. Thanks anyway. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DanielWork

Hi Frank. Remember we discussed this a couple of days ago? ? Well, it was just a brief respite. We're 154 similar new pages down the line, a 14 day break, and another 19 new articles in the last 3 days. That's nearly 500 and still counting ANI is pointless, he won't respond. Maybe he's a bot ;) --Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am generally of the opinion that such robotic creation of articles is not helpful to the project, but it's been done in the past and my recollection is that it is generally tolerated. So, my opinion is perhaps not important. If you can find what policy is being violated, another ANI discussion may be appropriate, and I'll evaluate and try to participate. The last time I saw such a thing it was BLPs, so there was more decisive action to be taken, but for villages, I think there isn't much to be done. If someone wanted to impose a sanction (or propose one to be community-agreed, even better) that might be the ticket.  Frank  |  talk  14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If it were villages there would be no problem as settlements are more or less de facto notable. This issue concerns mainly very poorly sourced BLP stubs. I've spent an hour doing some random checks and indeed they mostly fail to meet notability. To raise a new ANI, according to one admin, we would have to list the diffs for all 470 pages. IMHO that would be an impossible task unless someone has a script or a bot. I do feel strongly that something should be done to stop this runaway train. Perhaps an RfC? What's the standard procedure if an ANI won't work? --Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: User has been blocked very late last night. Sorry if I have been bothering you unduly :)--Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminami/Archive

I had a request to recheck my findings on this case. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? I originally ran a check on User:Taptop, which turned up the other two accounts. SmartSE pointed out on my talk page that Aminami may be a coincidental link. If you have a moment and could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! TNXMan 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that discussion on your talk page and looked at the contributions, and didn't reach any conclusions one way or the other based solely on them. Will look more extensively but it won't be for several hours. (I'm not rejecting the request but if you wanted to ask someone else in the meantime I won't be offended either.)  Frank  |  talk  22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Any word on this yet? I noticed that they've requested an unblock and explained why they could look like a sock, but the request was declined by Beeblebrox. The fact that all the socks signed before posting, but Aminami doesn't, would seem to indicate that they aren't the same person. SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered here; sorry I didn't indicate on this page as well.  Frank  |  talk  18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IP connection

From that policy: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. Jerome0012 meets that definition, and my purpose in requesting the Checkuser was to assist in targeting an IP block. Certainly it isn't done routinely, but we are on the third SPI report on this user, with six confirmed sockpuppets, making this persistent behaviour.—Kww(talk) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that such release of data would not be public, and it would be unlikely to be done by a checkuser acting individually. Certainly as a relatively new checkuser, I would not even consider such action without consultation with fellow checkusers, WMF, or both, and even then I would be exceedingly reluctant to do so publicly.

If users choose to engage in actions that reveal private information (i.e. WP:DUCK), that is their problem. If actions that checkusers take wind up revealing private information about individuals against their will and without their knowledge and consent, that's an entirely different matter and a breach of privacy policy. That they are vandalizing the project is not a reason to declare open warfare of that sort. I recognize that it's a leap from "connect this IP to this user" to "open warfare", but it's not a very big leap.  Frank  |  talk  22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think about 90% of your fellow checkusers wouldn't have objected to my request. Check and see.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see any diffs to support that claim. Furthermore, I would have zero objection and my feelings wouldn't be hurt in the least if you made the request of any of them. I am new at this and not above being educated. Even if I disagree, more data points are useful.  Frank  |  talk  03:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pulled up one of the larger SPI cases to find examples: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/2009. There's no doubt that checkusers tend to not report on IPs if they have alternatives. However, here we have Nishkid64 explicitly and directly stating that the listed IPs are AndreaCarax. Here we have Dominic processing a case that is completely about IPs. Here we have Amalthea confirming a Brexx IP. Over on Wiki-11233's stuff, we have Wizardman confirming a pair of IPs. Don't get me wrong: I'm fully aware that there is a reluctance to identify IPs. I tend to go for a "better safe than sorry" approach, and ask for confirmation if I have any doubt before I block an editor. Sometimes the check I request gets refused, sometimes it gets accepted. What bothered me here was describing acceptance of the case as being against policy. It lies within a checkuser's discretion as to whether the case falls into the class of persistent disruption. If he decides it does, IPs can be confirmed in SPI.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the policy is pretty clearly against what was requested (even in a couple of those cases), but on the other hand, I agree that discretion is part of it. As I said, I'm new at this and more thinking and consultation on my part may be required. Thanks for having a civil conversation about the topic; I've seen a couple of really unreasonable rants lately and it's really helpful to deal with someone who isn't over-reactive even if they have a different point of view to consider.  Frank  |  talk  15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Incubate

I was under the impression the article was already incubated. To incubate I would move it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Jennifer_Fitzgerald correct? Would you recommend I move all that is currently at User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald or one version or the other? Thanks --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should consult Wikipedia:Incubate#How_it_works and ask at the talk page of that page if you have further questions. Since I don't find this topic to even be appropriate for a Wikipedia article, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about it, but I did recommend WP:INCUBATE as a place to go for further advice. If the folks there can offer help in creating an appropriate article, fine; we can examine the article that results from that.  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cathie Black citation

I tried to track the off-line Albany Times Union citation you created here and couldn't find/make full sense of it. Steve Barnes appears to be a mostly a food blogger who was active in Oct., 2007 though he wrote nothing on the blog on the 21st. And he does do some general interest/cultural/social pieces, but I couldn't find anything about Black and Hearst (or anything, with those two names in the search, earlier than '09). All this could easily mean Barnes wrote the piece you cited and it's not archived, but the profile/gap still looked a little puzzling to me. Would you mind confirming the citation to me, for my peace of mind? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I got it from the Newspaper Source Plus database. Perhaps the accession number will help in your search: 2W62W62405295895. What "profile/gap" are you puzzled by?  Frank  |  talk  18:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Found an online link and added it to the cite in the article.  Frank  |  talk  18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much, adds so much. The profile concern was the "food blog" aspect. The gap(s) were the ones in the searches I was able to do, date and subject. Both your database and your archive are new to me, so I'll enjoy trying to get to know them. Thanks again. Quite a story, the appointment one. I appreciate the collaboration, as the story breaks. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the online link from www.timesunion.com, doing an archive search. But for most newspaper searches, and in fact where I originally found the article, I access either a university library or local county library, both of which have a number of databases available (for free, with authorized login) that cover many hundreds of news sources.  Frank  |  talk  18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Regarding this and other reference formatting changes, do you have some consensus to make this wholesale change?  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making a wholesale change. I'm just changing the people that have a long list of references, in an attempt to shorten the articles.--Corbridge (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2010

Thanks for the notice, but I am not involved with anything to do with Radiopathy's "indefinite 1RR restriction", and I would further note that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "forever". I undid one of Radiopathy's edits but without knowledge of (or care about) any 1RR restriction that may or may not still be active.  Frank  |  talk  20:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)`

No worries. It was a formality I felt obliged to perform. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Plastische Erasmus

Just so you know, Plastische Erasmus has apologized and explained (it was a role account being used by several med students at the Erasmus Plastic Surgery Centre in Rotterdam). I've left the "Plastische" account itself blocked, but removed the IP block and re-enabled account creation, so that the students can create separate accounts.

Some of the contributions were utterly messed up, but isn't triphalangeal thumb excellent? DS (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is lacking and, at least based on what I found and documented at talk:peripheral nerve reconstruction, plainly unsatisfactory. In addition, User:Wikiclass emc appears to have been created to get around the block. I will AGF for now, but I am also going to look through some more contributions. I am not cynical - and in fact, if someone were really trying to abuse copyright, they surely would find it more advantageous to leave out the sources - but I do have an issue with a statement that reads It were single sentences from publications and the source was references but not quoted. Those were not quotes and they were not single sentences. But again, I'm going to AGF. No sense in chasing away good faith contributors; we can hopefully bring contributions up to par.  Frank  |  talk  13:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it seems to be several different students of varying levels of competence (check the deleted contributions!). Keeping their contributions distinct from each other will be a necessary first step. As for "Wikiclass EMC", which is quite obviously a Class at the Erasmus Medical Center: I recommend blocking it as a role account, and very gently explaining that the students must use separate accounts. DS (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Peripheral nerve reconstruction

Hi, Frank. Been a while. :) Peripheral nerve reconstruction has come due at WP:CP. Do you have access to these sources? There's a rewrite at Talk:Peripheral nerve reconstruction/Temp, but I'm hampered in evaluating it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to look into that. I spent some time dealing with the account itself; I think that's all resolved for the moment. (It was a role account for students.)  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that little is required in trying to access the sources. I detailed my concerns (I stopped at three sources) at Talk:Peripheral_nerve_reconstruction right after I tagged it. If you take a look at Talk:Peripheral_nerve_reconstruction/Temp, where some effort was ostensibly put in, the copyvios remain. I think the whole article should probably be deleted, but I'm open to other interpretation. I would like you to take 5 minutes comparing the copyvios I put on the talk page originally with both the slightly edited original article and the /Temp version of it. I am not at all satisfied that the copyvios are removed, but I am fine if you judge otherwise. You may rely on my quotes on the talk page of the original article as complete and accurate reproductions from the source, even if you don't have access; they are copy/pasted and I can send you PDFs if you wish. I would delete the article myself myself but I might be considered "involved" and I am fine with deferring to your judgment either way.  Frank  |  talk  01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll compare the original with the rewrites and proceed accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Frank, this is worth noting. They had made an effort to rewrite one passage, but a new contributor came in and restored it to a copyvio state: [2]. Is this one of your project people? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a note about it at User talk:Wikiclass emc. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Long time no chat, how have you been? Syjytg (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, and you?  Frank  |  talk  02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. Syjytg (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Help Me - October 18, 2010

Quite some time ago (October 18, 2010), you provided me with some help on my Talk Page. The issue was about my trying to sort a Wikipedia Table by combining two tables to appear as if they were only one table. I have put that project on my "back burner" for now, as I have become preoccupied with other matters. But, I wanted to thank you for your time and assistance. And I wanted to thank you for replying to my Help request. If I have further questions in the future (when I tackle that issue once again), I may be in touch. Thanks for all of your help. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Hi

Hello, I was wondering if it were possible for you to retrieve the following articles off of jstor for me? One is called "Frankenstein and the Feminine Subversion of the Novel" and the other is an article entitled "Frankenstein's Daughter". If possible, please could you email them to me at nhung0127@yahoo.com

Many many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.211.218 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I have access to JSTOR, it's not really meant for just emailing article requests like this. It's meant to check references, so for example if there were an article on Wikipedia that you had a question about a particular reference, I would gladly check that. Mailing a couple of articles to someone by request like this seems to have the potential to be abuse of copyright. I would suggest, though, that your local library might have the ability to do this, either in the library itself, or (as my local library), online. It costs nothing more than a library card in my county.  Frank  |  talk  14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Frank.

Have question for you:
Can CheckUser find additional sockpuppets if they were not mentioned during a sockpuppet investigation? The reason why I'm asking is because a sockpuppeter may have more accounts that aren't under suspicion, and weren't mentioned by the person who started the investigation. Does the nominator have to mention all possible sockpuppets even if they don't know about them or CheckUser will take care of it? Is an additional request necessary during the investigation in order to find additional unknown sockpuppets? --John KB (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

These are known as sleepers and checkusers generally try to identify such. It's sort of necessary, actually, because if an IP address is blocked and more than one user has edited from that IP address, there may be collateral damage where an innocent user is blocked from editing. Hope that answers your question; let me know if it doesn't or if you have further questions.  Frank  |  talk  04:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it does; wanted to know if CheckUser will find them on its own, if there's more than one sockpuppet.

Another question: you do need at least two accounts, a sockpuppeter and a sockmaster, right? The reason why I'm asking is because I've noticed two accounts who may or may not be the same user, but have the same interests, on the same pages and have roughly the same amount of edits (200) and appear sporadically, always making the same repetitive edits. But they may not be the same person, just people working for the same organization pushing an agenda on wikipedia. There's WP:DUCK and that should be enough to nominate the two of them together, right? But they may be acting separately, so even if they're pushing the same agenda, they're not the same person, just two very careful people who want to strike once in a while and hope nobody notices. So that makes me think, if they're two different people, should I nominate them separately and let Checkuser find if they have any other sleepers out there? Or just nominate them together and hope they used the same ip at least once and catch them in the act? --John KB (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might start by asking the users themselves; unlikely you'll get any admission of being a sock but sometimes the reaction can be useful, whatever it is. Rather than "are you two socks", you might try "I notice these two accounts seem very similar; do you know anything about that?" Maybe you'll get "yeah, that other one is my brother" or "sure, I'm having a bit of fun at someone's expense" or "no, they're not socks" (but you didn't mention the word sock, so they are denying the very thing they are actually doing and know full well what they are up to even with only 200 edits). It's worth pointing out that CU is not perfect. The situation you describe may be two different people, and it may be one person. If it's two, there may be meatpuppetry going on (where they are, for example, roommates and either by mutual assent or by direction of one, they both perform the same kinds of edits). On the other hand, they may be on different continents (but still meatpuppets). And they may have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Then again, it may be one person and CU has a difficult time determining that. And it may be crystal-clear sockpuppetry that CU has no problem identifying instantly. The problem is that CU is not for fishing, as it deals with private user data, so it's not really a situation where you can say "check these two and see what you come up with". So what I would say is that you need to have a case that either a CU or a CU clerk finds compelling, however it is presented. From what you're describing, it sounds like one case. But I have no comment on whether or not a CU would actually perform a check...impossible to know without seeing the evidence.  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Will see if it works. What I do know is that they're here for promotional purposes and even told a third account that promotes the same organization to stop because he was refspamming dozens of articles. There's also coatracking going on, where you have blps that barely mention the living person and are only a bunch of external links and references about the organization. Have cleaned-up a few of them, basically in the interest of actually having biographies that discuss their subjects and added actual information about them, but who knows how many more blps are there, created by which accounts. It's about checking on them, and will provide more names if I find them suspicious (sporadic appearances, small amount of edits, aiming to promote). Can send you an email, but I don't know if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for the advice, Frank. --John KB (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is inappropriate editing going on, it isn't necessary to prove that there is socking in order to have action taken. Why not start with listing the articles showing concerning behavior? Then they can be looked at on their own merits. If a pattern emerges that would support CU investigation, then so be it. If not, at least the articles themselves will be getting attention they deserve. No need to solve all problems in one step.  Frank  |  talk  20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank. Will probably concentrate on those two accounts and prepare a good explanation to request CU. Maybe COI if necessary for the third account who makes similar arguments as the other two, and may be related or not. One step at a time. --John KB (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by COI in this case. My own opinion is that established editors often throw the WP:COI acronym at newbies with the thought that because one is close to a subject, one cannot write independently about it. I don't think that is true; I think people just need to be mindful of sources and verification. Some folks, of course, cannot write dispassionately, but that doesn't mean that nobody can. Obviously I'm not talking specifically about what you're working on, since I don't know the editors involved; I'm just speaking generically. I think COI is often a non-starter and just muddies the waters. A bad edit is a bad edit, whether or not there is a COI...and by the same token, a good edit is a good edit...whether or not there is a COI.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

location

not gonna lie, kind of creepy that you traced my ip. but its all good now because it seems my ip changer works. you say im in pittsburgh? nice!--150.212.72.23 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Creepy? The link is right there at the bottom of User talk:150.212.72.23. Click where it says "geolocate". Nothing creepy about it...it's how the Internet works.  Frank  |  talk  18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article on Rheticus' tables

Hi Frank, why did you remove the references I have added? Because I added them? If so, why not put them yourself? Please have a look at the links I gave and judge yourself if they are appropriate to the article. But don't remove something without looking at the original document. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roegel (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You have qualified my contributions of vandalism???? I am sorry, but you are the one who destroys the genuine work of others.Roegel (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I am not going to add these links again, I just hope that you will be honest, and look at the documents, add them back, and apologize for your unfair behavior. You have just behaved like a machine, with no brain.Roegel (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding links to your own work on your own web site certainly looks like WP:SPAM to me. If you see a reason why that is not so, please let me know.  Frank  |  talk  00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the documents to which I pointed? If not, then I think that your actions are a bit simplistic. Of course, it can look like self promotion, but my purpose is not to promote myself. These documents are important, and someone else will add them, even without me asking them to do so. It could be you. They are just relevant for the page. You have a childish and unscientific attitude. Wait and see.Roegel (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The documents may be important; I am making no assertion otherwise. If the community recognizes that and adds it to the articles, that would be more appropriate. When you come to Wikipedia with a barely-used account and make 10 edits in a row adding a link to your own web site, the importance of the documents is completely overshadowed by the addition of WP:SPAM links. That's the point here.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edwards Edits

Please see my talk page. The last part of my comments, about the military brat Wikilink are the most important. Can you read that carefully, they are rendered respectfully, but make some important points (that are new to the discussion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Telemachus.forward#Article_edits

Thanks.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Important-- please read my response to your last post on the subect here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Telemachus.forward#Article_edits

Thanks,

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Only twice, but I will abide by 2RR. The one was a sloppy attempt by an editor, who was doing 100's of edits and not paying attention to not do semi-automated edits on important articles. Reverting that kind of mass edit is in the same category as reverting vandalism, doesn't count to 3RR. But again, I will 2RRMVOO (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that there is clearly undue weight with a large quotation box and lots of stuff.

The problem with that is that people want to defend the man and "prove" that he is not a Muslim.

To that, I say that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Another thing is that Wikipedia is not advertising and not out to prove anything. Proving is POV pushing. Simply state he is a Christian and maybe have some text about all the attention given to it. But to include a huge box of a non-notable speech is clearly undue weight and POV pushing. The message of the POV may be correct, but the act of POV pushing is improper.

NEWSFLASH

I just looked up 3RR. You are an administrator so you should know.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.

So 3RR is ok, it is 4RR that is not.

Please become familiar with the rules. Thanks for letting me know so that I could review them. MVOO (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a news flash; I am plenty familiar with the rules. I've replied in more detail on your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten

I basically told you I did not violate 3RR and thanked you for letting me know.

Instead, you start accusing me of things. That is disruption on your part. Non-disruption would be like a message saying....ok. just be careful or something like that.

You are an administrator so you should be skilled on being nice and promoting calm. But you aren't. Try to work on that and it will help Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has said that people are too angry and rude, let's be calm and polite. If you are angry because of something I wrote, sorry. In fact, to make you happy, I will not edit anymore today but please don't try to provoke me. Happy Saturday! MVOO (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not threatening; I'm explaining how the Wikipedia community works. If you intend to edit within the parameters defined by the community, you have no reason to feel threatened. Your recent edits have shown otherwise, and I have alerted you to that fact and given you plenty of leeway. As I've already indicated, there are other admins who would have already blocked you for the tendentious editing you've already done at Barack Obama.  Frank  |  talk  22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits have been top notch and an improvement. Removed undue weight and made it not an advertisement and added a major policy shift which another editor improved upon. In contrast, the other people are tendentious because they want undue weight and are aggressive. There is no reasonable way for you to show that my edits are poor quality because they are of high quality. MVOO (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a policy shift at WP:RS/N, that was people pointing out that you're misunderstanding the policy to remove the main source on Obama's religious views, in an attempt to leave people unconvinced (which, considering that 1/3 of the GOP and 2/3s of Fox news viewers think he's a Muslim, it doesn't appear that having a quote stating he's a Christian is the POV-pushing in this case.) If your edits were top notch, why are so many people concerned about them? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is what he means [[3]], which was in fact not improved but undone [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Thanks

Could you please also delete my archive. According to this "archives created by page move are generally not deleted" (highlighted by me). Here is only one example of two the same posts from my archive and my talk page history. Practically all (in not all the messages of my archive) could be found in my talk page history. There's no reason to keep the archive. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not saying I absolutely object to such deletion, I am not also not convinced it is useful, and I don't see anything which covers its deletion under policy. I'm aware of some controversy surrounding this already; if there is consensus (at this point, among functionaries) I'd be willing to comply but I don't see a reason to unilaterally do so when it's already been challenged. And, it has to be said, I really don't see where it is covered in policy, even under WP:RTV. My advice is simple: if you wish to leave Wikipedia, please feel free to do so, and don't attach it to some dependency on deletion of your user talk page or its archive. I have no opinion on whether you should or shouldn't leave, but if that's your decision, keep it simple and move on. Just my opinion; feel free to take it or leave it.  Frank  |  talk  02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sock categories

Hello, Frank! Regarding the question as to whether vandal socks can be un-tagged or not, I feel a bit doubtful. Personally, I see no reason why they have to be tagged if only RBI works. Moreover, administrators have (both in the past and recently), per WP:DENY, deleted user and user talk pages which tag users as socks; see this and this. Regarding MuZemike, it's possible that Ironholds' deletion of the AD sock category attracted him to to the same thing. Regarding the sockpuppeteers in question, their sock categories are completely empty. At least, could you take a look at MuZemike's deletions and see if they should be undone? Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that active sockmasters should be identified as such and tracked, but I also understand the WP:DENY point of view. Although I commented on Ironholds' talk page regarding deletion of an entire category of an active sockmaster, that doesn't mean I have an overall firm opinion that things should be a certain way in all cases. In addition, of course, my opinion is just one among many. I have not participated in any discussion as to what consensus is on this issue; nor do I know if such a discussion has ever been had.  Frank  |  talk  16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Spitfire, the deletions were discussed before they were made. HeyMid (contribs) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping

You have email. ceranthor 21:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Block question

Heya :). In fact, I saw the report on AIV (I only saw the post on SPI today). I assumed it was indeed a sockpuppet due to his edits, and only checked the IP afterwards to root out any sleepers. I didn't find anything there either (it's is a school IP if I remember well). Since his edits were not constructive, I left him blocked. -- Luk ^talk 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen it at AIV but rather at SPI, so that's why I asked.  Frank  |  talk  18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assist at ANI

Hi, Frank! I just wanted to briefly say "thanks" for informing the user I'd posted about at ANI of the thread since I wanted to respect his wishes re his talk page. I hope you don't mind that I replaced your "done" tag with "user notified", though; I was concerned that "done" might cause others to think the whole thing was done, rather than just the notify. But thanks, again, for making that notification. I appreciate it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Make sense to me. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Truesayer

Hi sockpuppeteer Truesayer who you helped to investigate is back from his ban and is making the same undue edits as before. He's also misusing the minor edit box and deleting references. On top of that he's again making some rather offensive false allegations about myself so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look as he won't listen to any advice. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the account was blocked, not banned...which is a significant difference. Second, if you are in an editing dispute with a user, you need to deal with the content of what's going on, not whether or not a user abused multiple accounts previously. If the socking occurs again, we can deal with that as a separate issue, but for the moment, the alternate account was blocked, the primary account was blocked for a day, and the user has been warned. There's not much else to do at the moment, until some other policy is violated. Having a different opinion from another editor is not yet a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Frank  |  talk  02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the ban/block terminology mistake, I wasn't suggesting further action should be taken, I just thought he might listen to the advice of an uninvolved editor. Also I'm not too bothered but it would be good if his earlier smear on myself could be removed from the edit description by deleting the edit from the record (there's no noticeboard for that, it just says to message an administrator with such requests).--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also it's worth bearing in mind there's a serious BLP issue here in Truesayer repeatedly falsely describing someone as a Jew.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to need diffs for any hope of action taking place. I don't guarantee it, but without diffs, I know for sure I'm not going to hunt down edits and hope I get it right.  Frank  |  talk  03:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes sorry I am just getting fed up of spending so much time dealing with Truesayer. The BLP breach in the edit summary is here [5] (I should have reported it sooner really though I did already previously raise the issue of the attack on myself). Denis MacShane is Roman Catholic and not Jewish. The same false information has been repeated here also [6] --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted the first one, as the edit summary is the entirety of the offensive material. The second one I have left, although it substantially repeats the content of the first; there is more context and deleting that edit would make it difficult for others in the community to see the editing pattern. I agree the material is offensive, but it's difficult to make the direct claim that it is a BLP violation; putting such directly in the articles about the individual people might be...but this is questionable.  Frank  |  talk  03:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's great, hopefully he will retract the statement himself as I have suggested. If by "editing pattern" you mean my edits then please note the statement is false and the "editing pattern" as he describes it does not exist as he neglected to mention every single edit of a white male in between all those he listed. It's an entirely false accusation with entirely false evidence too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to his editing pattern, not yours.  Frank  |  talk  03:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks. What step do you advise I take next please, I'm not sure which noticeboard I should be using?--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How about WP:LETITGOFORNOW?  Frank  |  talk  04:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "All my life"

A page you created, All my life, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:52am • 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I didn't create the article; I moved it to a more proper title and then fixed the redirect left behind.  Frank  |  talk  00:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Frank! I'm not sending out thankspam to everyone, but I would like to personally thank you for your support and for the kind words. I was most pleasantly surprised to see you there on my RfA, which demonstrates that there is a lot more to this Wikipedia 'Good faith' thing than I had perhaps realised, and I shall take careful note of it. I look very much forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it as well, and please feel free to ping me with any questions. That's not to say I have all the answers, but I may be able to point you in the right direction, and I certainly have no lack of opinions, as you know :-)  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million on the RFCU.

Just wanted to say thanks for the great turnaround time on the RFCU. I know back in the day it took a while, but you rocked the house on it.  RasputinAXP  05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. One thing I've found is that they can take a while when they are less than obvious. This was a no-brainer. The wide range of dates the accounts were created on gave me some pause, but the evidence was crystal clear.  Frank  |  talk  12:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Worcsinfo

Hi Frank! See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Worcsinfo. I discovered and added yet another one last night but I didn't block it yet. Do you think a range block for some of the more common numbers of theirs would be appropriate? --Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Such faith you have in my abilities. I am not as experienced as you might think. I pretty much handle this stuff from WP:SPI, and occasionally from WP:ANI. And, I have rarely done a rangeblock, although I did look at one tonight. I decided against it though; there were 1K addresses in the range (pretty small, really) but I still felt like other users would have been caught by the block. This is by no means saying your request is out of line; I am just not the right one for it. If you can provide me more details, I can look; if someone else acts on this request, let me know the result so I can learn too.  Frank  |  talk  03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Frank. This sock has used dozens of user names and IPs but it is limited to one specific set of articles which are being carefully watched by both the WP:WORCS and WP:WPSCH projects. If it comes up again I'll let you know. --Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Skucorp

Regarding your deletions of his voter machine articles, could you please see the WP:ANI on him? Thank you. Phearson (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Already replied there (which may have crossed with this message). Anything more you think should be done?  Frank  |  talk  03:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Per policy regarding usernames, he needs to be blocked. He is listed at WP:UAA Phearson (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let someone who normally patrols UAA adjudicate this one. It is clear that is the purpose of the account - no denying that - but I don't think it's necessary for me to kick a user when he's down. The articles can't stay as they were written. The user can stay, however - and blocking might drive away a user that could otherwise be turned productive. I doubt that will happen, because it will probably be blocked shortly, but that's how I feel about it.  Frank  |  talk  03:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position, thanks anyway. Phearson (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frank. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chorlseton.
Message added 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Architect

Hi Frank, I have been unable to find a clearing house for teh legal reference on this issue. I really need some help posting it correctly and in the right place. Also thanks for the comments and suggestions. DaveJerry20112011 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U Corbridge

Hi Frank. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at it briefly and, like most RFCUs, I can see it involves a mountainous volume of work to create, which I'm largely glad to not have to be involved in. Nevertheless, if there's something to be said, I can certainly do so. Can you tell me which of the diffs shown related to some interaction I've had with Corbridge?  Frank  |  talk  20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing -- I included you in the RFC because of this interaction on Corbridge's talk page, which I think illustrates Corbridge's unwillingness to engage in discussion to resolve disagreements and general combativeness. Arbor8 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I remember that one now. Thanks for the refresher.  Frank  |  talk  21:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind jumping in and certifying the RCFU? Nobody else seems to be stepping up. Arbor8 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page

Please, show me or send me the deleted page Karel Prikry. Thanks. Kope (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to show. It was a vandalism page.  Frank  |  talk  03:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bakhshi82 changing and removing editors' comments

He's still at it, and this time I had to revert him. I am coming to you about this because you are an administrator and reverted him once already. Should I take this to the Administrator's Noticeboard instead? Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct course of action. The fact that I am an administrator is irrelevant; I reverted the edits because they were inappropriate, but I would not then take administrative action against the same user except in some extraordinary circumstance.  Frank  |  talk  16:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But if he kept making the edits, wouldn't you eventually take administrative action if still watching the article? Administrators take such action all the time. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not a great fan of "everybody does it" as a justification for doing something. Perhaps "extraordinary" is too strong a word - I do take admin action after warning users myself, so it is not that I wouldn't do it. But there are hundreds of active admins around here. Why risk getting into a situation where someone can claim I am being dictatorial when I can just refer the action to someone else to adjudicate? If it isn't clear-cut enough for immediate action by someone else, perhaps that is a clue that taking action myself might be a bit hasty anyway. If someone is doing clear and immediate harm to the project, I can and will take action (and have in the past). I generally don't think of edit-warring and POV-pushing as falling into that category.  Frank  |  talk  02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to use an "everybody does it" justification, at least not by itself. Nor do I believe in that type of justification in general. After all, that is one of the reasons for drug problems in the world. I was saying that I felt his actions were wrong enough that his continuing to carry out such actions was perfectly within the rights of the administrator who reverted him the first time to act against such edits again (whether it be a warning on his talk page or whatever). I'm not seeing how anyone would claim you were being dictatorial and weren't acting properly simply because of that. To me, it was clear harm to the project and was not a simple matter of edit warring. But I can understand your reasoning for stepping away, even while I disagree with aspects of it. Thank you for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the behavior appears to have ceased for the moment, so I don't see any action to take at this point. That is not to say it won't happen again, nor that I won't get involved again...just nothing to do now.  Frank  |  talk  11:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He's still bugging me at my talk page (after administrative warning at the Noticeboard for us to leave each other alone), but I'm mainly ignoring it. He is likely to stop completely anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)