Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Davin (talk | contribs)
3,523 edits
Line 216: Line 216:
:::::::It's {{User|Michael93555}} and this sock was created September 8, the same day that Michael's other sock {{User|D climacus}} was blocked. He just plays games with us for entertainment value and is best dealt with by [[WP:RBI|RBI]]. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It's {{User|Michael93555}} and this sock was created September 8, the same day that Michael's other sock {{User|D climacus}} was blocked. He just plays games with us for entertainment value and is best dealt with by [[WP:RBI|RBI]]. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I'm curious if there's more than these two. Just glancing at his contributions I don't see any real disruption. D climacus was started two months after Michael93555, there's no overlap, he just restarted under a new name. And has done so again. I've seen admins abuse the [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] policy more than this. Would it be reasonable for an admin to unblock on a condition that Michael volunteers to restrict himself to this current account and not create any more? --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] ([[User talk:InkSplotch|talk]]) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I'm curious if there's more than these two. Just glancing at his contributions I don't see any real disruption. D climacus was started two months after Michael93555, there's no overlap, he just restarted under a new name. And has done so again. I've seen admins abuse the [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] policy more than this. Would it be reasonable for an admin to unblock on a condition that Michael volunteers to restrict himself to this current account and not create any more? --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] ([[User talk:InkSplotch|talk]]) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Digging deeper I've now seen the sockpuppet investigation on the original account, and understand the reason things have been closed out this way. I think if the user really wants back at this point, they might take their case to ArbCom as a community ban appeal. Maybe not really the exact way to go here, but it was quite a sockpuppet investigation. --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] ([[User talk:InkSplotch|talk]]) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


== innapropriate behavior and page speedy deletion ==
== innapropriate behavior and page speedy deletion ==

Revision as of 19:16, 24 September 2009

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Review and proposed ban of spam-only account, Filmtvfan

    User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) is user NZ On Screen (talk · contribs). This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been linking to NZ On Screen. Additionaly nzonscreen.com fails the specific requirements of our External Links guidelines.

    See also - User_talk:NZ_On_Screen
    See also - NZ On Screen
    See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan
    See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#NZ_On_Screen
    Other Accounts

    Violations of, but not limited to:

    This user is now subject to;

    1. (Persistent spamming)
    1. (Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.).

    After being blocked previously and declined 4 times[1], this situation was sufficiently explained to NZ On Screen Project Director Brenda Leeuwenberg[2] on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago. This user has continued this past year spamming and promoting NZ On Screen, and pacing hundreds of links to her site. While there is limited discussion on the Newly created WP:EL/N, a wider administrative and community review is needed of this users behavior.--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job with the block. I have take out NZOS links from some NZ media pages on my watchlist. Mostlyharmless' revert was based in an archived EL discussion that has now been overtaken by events.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a shame. Filmtvfan is undoubtedly a SPA with a COI, but her edits benefited Wikipedia by providing reliable sources and useful links per WP:ELYES. She also asked permission for her edits, and got it, firstly at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, and then at Wikipedia talk:External links.

    Hu12 has followed policy in pressing for a block on Filmtvfan and in reverting her edits, but they has made the encyclopedia of lower quality by doing so.-gadfium 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this block is unwarranted. JzG|Guy accused the user of block evasion on their talk page. However, clear permission had been given to resume posting in early 2009. The other block justification was spamming, however many users have recently stated that at least some of these links are proper, in addition to the previous agreement reached on link usefulness. As for the violations cited by Hu12, most of them are guidelines, not policies, and all have clear exceptions that cover many of the NZ On Screen links. And that's before we even get to WP:IAR. I disagree with Hu12's statement that "'relevant' does not make exception to the multiple WP:ELNO restictions, and vio's of WP:NOT and WP:COI." This statement is a clear violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, especially given that many of the links don't actually violate the guidelines he has claimed. Furthermore, Hu12 posted a final warning to the user and then JzG|Guy came along and blocked the account even though no more edits had taken place and she had not been permitted to respond to the questions on WP:ELN#NZ On Screen. This user isn't trying to blatant violate policy as can be seen in her statement from WP:ELN: "If this community would prefer that I propose a link each time in the Talk section of an article and wait for acceptance, then I am happy to do that - I think that the proposal of waiting a week for an objection or discussion is a good one. I certainly do not wish to contravene any rules."
    The confusion we have here is that there are two types of ELs involved, both of which I think we were making progress on at WP:ELN. The first are links to video footage directly related to the article for which NZ On Screen has copyright permission to host but would be a violation to host on Wikipedia. In one case, Filmtvfan replaced a link to an unauthorized YouTube video with a link to a legal copy at NZ On Screen. Even this link was accused of being spam and reverted to the illegal link! The second type of link is to detailed biographical data on NZ On Screen that goes beyond what is in the Wikipedia article. A number of editors, including myself, feel that these links are not appropriate and that the material should be directly incorporated into the articles. The material is CC licensed. However, the sources aren't clear in many cases. Filmtvfan could be a valuable resource in enhancing the article with appropriate sources given her expertise.
    Should Filmtvfan fail to abide by the boundaries we have setup in WP:ELN and continue directly adding biographical links, I'll be the first to ask for a block. I don't think we are at that point. I deal with spammers all the time and most of them have nothing of value to contribute. Filmtvfan is not at all such a clear cut case. I have no connection whatsoever to Filmtvfan or NZ On Screen. I had never even visited any of the articles in question before this controversy came up. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with this, but the distinction isn't entirely clear cut, as I understand it. To take one example, the link on cinematographer Alun Bollinger is to a biographical type article, which contains a list of the films he has shot, and most of these link directly to copies of the entire film. There are a number of rules that could be used to include or exclude this link. Needless to say, this is a grey area (or a potentially disputed one), and will probably have to be discussed elsewhere. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that some bio links may be a special case and WP:ELN is the right place to address them. In general, I would like to see the meat of the biographies incorporated into the article so we have proper sourcing and so that others can edit and further develop the material. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Filmtvfan's only edits have been dealing with the website nzonscreen.com, as had the old account NZ On Screen. I don't see a reason to unblock unless the user plans on contributing to articles and not adding the links to other sites.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such behavior isn't banned by WP:SPA, which is itself only an essay. The SPA distinction is useful to identify real violations, including COI. However, the COI issue is well known in this case and we've been trying to deal with it in accordance with WP:COI. Everyone starts out as a SPA. If we bite them all there won't be anyone left. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with users Gadfium and UncleDouggie. I have watchlisted a large number of the pages which links were added to. I saw nothing untoward about them, and thought that they were valuable additions. I agree that Filmtvfan has sought consensus for her edits, and then followed that consensus. Initially, as with all new users, there was less understanding of the rules, but once informed of them Filmtvfan has made an effort to follow them, and worked with other users. I think this editor would make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the points made above by Gadfium, UncleDouggie and Mostlyharmless. The edits that were made benefited Wikipedia, and the user sought permission. I would predict that this user may well have turned into a productive user if this whole process had been dealt with better. I worry that it is now too late, and much worse the person has probably told friends "don't bother with trying to add to Wikipedia, it's a closed community of pedants, who are not interested in helping you learn how to participate, nor really even interested in creating an encyclopedia as much as policing one" Lanma726 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general agreement with the block; if the editor wants to actually, y'know, add content to articles instead if plopping in hundreds of external links to a single site, then we could certainly reconsider. Honestly, looking at some of the discussion of these links previously, the "consensus" that is being claimed above is pretty thin - two or three people in each discussion. The site may be non-commercial, but it's a government project promoting regional projects, so there's still a promotional aspect to it. Use the information thereon for building up articles, cool; simply dumping in external links, not so much. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is conceivable that some uses of the NZ film site might have value. But the title of this AN report is about a proposed ban on the Filmvfan *account*, not a blacklisting of the link. I am concerned by this recent edit, with the edit summary "(Undid revision 313081539 as per this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan)". Notice:
    1. She is restoring the link after it was removed by a regular editor
    2. Filmtvfan thinks the EL/N discussion has given her carte blanche to continue adding the link
    3. She is still adding no content to these articles, only the link
    I'd support an unblock if this editor were *restricted* from adding that link to any articles. I don't object to her putting a request to add the link on article talk pages, for consideration by regular editors. I certainly don't trust that she will understand and follow our normal editorial standards for which links belong where. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the discussion before blocking. It's my opinion that the user was well aware that adding the link was not acceptable and that requests on the talk page was the only permissible way forward; even after that, we have the diff you link. Therefore I diagnose someone to whom getting their links in place is more important than respecting the project and its contributors. It looks to me as if the user does not trust anybody to judge whether the links are OK unless they agree that they are. I note also that the user created an article on the website. The fact that the site has some external credibility is a complication, but as far as Wikipedia goes this is an absolutely standard case of linkspamming, of the type we usually handle with WP:RBI and quite often with blacklisting. They are lucky that some good faith editors have supported links to the site so that blacklisting will probably not happen (unless of course it's found that they have been doing the same on other projects, in which case it might well rise to the level of meta blacklisting). The law of unintended consequences applies, of course, to all linkspammers. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless other abuses are found, blacklisting isn't the issue here. So moving forward. None of the links to any of the discussions ammounted to any sort of "consensus" to spam Wikipedia en-mas. One or two editors mistakenly agreeing to allow an organization's marketing representative to mass spam wikipedia is misguided, and some activly encouriging this user to "keep at it" [3] is simply irresponsible. This situation was sufficiently explained to the NZ On Screen Project Director on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago in at least 4 unblock requests.[4]. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Some here need to consider why we have guidelines on Wikipedia. They are a result of wikipedias founding principles,...neutrality! Adding the same domain over and over is contradictory to this. Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites. Typically of all sites that are owned by a single company or non-profit, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture here clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests, NZ On Screen. This is a good block and not very controversial.--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I second EdJohnston's idea, the links do have some merit here and there, though seen that Filmtvfan is evading a block, and seen that they continued blatantly with what they were blocked for in the first place, I would suggest to restrict Filmtvfan for now (until further review of their edits) from adding links to mainspace themselves, they can discuss on talkpages, suggest links (but no response for a week, or even a year is not an excuse to add then the link themselves), but better, I would certainly like to see that they start writing content using their site's information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The block evasion disturbs me, and the misrepresentation of the earlier WP:EL conversations is distressing. The prior conversations said only that links to these videos were not automatically barred by the guideline, but that they must always be labeled with file size/required software. Filmtvfan seemed to interpret "not automatically prohibited" as "always allowed, even over the objections of other editors" -- and also 'forgot' to label the links.
    I'd be satisfied with a never-in-the-mainspace restriction, although the usual thing is to require block-evading socks to wait one year before requesting editing privileges. I suspect that we could find a couple of editors to keep an eye on the user's contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support EdJohnston's proposal. The recent links I looked at did have the proper labeling, but I didn't check all of them. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) has responded on her talk page because she can't post here. There's also discussion of a related block taking place there. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to keep this thread alive since Hu12 has archived the one at ELN in favor of this discussion. What's our plan to move forward? I see some activity today from Guy, but he hasn't responded any further to this issue, including his block of Capricorn58, which I believe is incorrect. For Filmtvfan, we never said that in all cases "requests on the talk page was the only permissible way forward" as asserted by Guy above. This is however the proposal put forward by EdJohnston and I think it deserves a shot. There's no way that you can say this is an "absolutely standard case of linkspamming" when many neutral editors have said that at least some of the links are valid. For a regular spammer, all the links are junk and need to be deleted. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here some comparisons;
    • 2009-05-07 23:02:38 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Denny Hulme (→External links)
    • 2009-05-07 22:59:56 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Denny Hulme (→External links)
    • 2009-05-07 22:47:33 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Chris Amon (→External links)
    • 2009-05-07 22:23:52 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Bruce McLaren (→External links)
    • 2009-05-07 22:10:15 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Bruce McLaren (External Links added )
    • 2009-05-07 02:53:36 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Derek Fox (New Zealand) (Added bio notes and link to full bio on NZ On Screen)
    • 2009-05-07 01:20:55 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) NZ On Screen (update)
    • 2009-05-07 01:11:49 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Television New Zealand (updating)
    • 2009-05-07 00:56:59 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m Censorship in New Zealand
    • 2009-05-07 00:47:51 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Radio New Zealand
    • 2009-05-07 00:47:26 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m Radio New Zealand
    • 2009-05-07 00:45:32 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m New Zealand On Air
    • 2009-05-07 00:33:23 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) New Zealand On Air
    • 2009-05-07 00:29:40 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Neil Walter (adding information)
    Seems Capricorn58 is an WP:SPA for New Zealand On Air, from his/her first edit and all edits thereafter seem to maintain these related articles. Filmtvfan probably has an idea who this is, if its not her. I would not be opposed to unblocking if the actual account holder request it, however this account seems to be a "throw-away" account.--Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD closing

    Resolved
     – Closure was based on apparent consensus. If you have any more problems, take to deletion review.

    Are admins allowed to close AFDs based own purely on their own personal opinion and completely ignore the AFD discussion? Because that seems to have happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators doesn't seem to have been followed at all.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That AFD close is within policy... virtually every vote was for keeping the article, and MoP closed it as such. In addition, I see you have a history of bad-faith nominations... Until It Sleeps alternate 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are supposed to close AFDs based on strengths of arguments, not head/vote count.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no other reasonable option than to close that as keep. To close it as "delete" would have gone directly against consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus because they didn't dispute the nomination, and if nobody disputes it then it should be deleted. If you don't believe me read it yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    4. When in doubt, don't delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean ignore the rest of the guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true at all. Going by numbers, there was unanimous consensus to keep, and I can see no real reason to discount any votes in particular for failure to comply with AfD voting guidelines. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments as I've already said twice above, none of the votes had anything to do with the nomination statement or were policy/guideline based.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what? Votes do not have to directly address the nomination statement, they just need to provide sufficient rationales to explain their reasoning. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The close was valid. Period. If you have a problem with an AFD close, go to WP:DRV first, not here. J.delanoygabsadds 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So the admin judged that WP:ILIKEIT + WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS > failure of both general & web notability guidelines? I'm not taking it to DRV because the admin isn't responding.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this marked as resolved? The closing admin is not responding so I can't take it to DRV yet.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Em, if you're really that concerned just go ahead and do it. MoP will get to it when he comes online.  GARDEN  17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. He can't take it to DRV because: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Apologies then.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <- Might be worth noting that arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and as such not gospel.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It also might be worth mentioning that WP:PUFF seems to work very well to stop articles being deleted as shown here,--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also an essay. The close was correct, let us move onward and upward. Thanks,  GARDEN  22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Don't take this to DRV. In order to have the deletion decision overturned you would have to argue why ignoring unanimity in responses would have been a better way to read consensus. I don't suspect there is enough grist for the mill here. I would endorse this if it came to DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you looked in to it you would see it's true. All but one of my afds have been exclusively edited by the same users, so it's impossible for them not to be deleted if admins do a head count every time.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt a particular group of users is out to sabotage your AfD nominations. That said, you seem rather focused on this "head count" bit. Yes, you're correct; consensus does not rely on numbers. But there comes a time when you can't just say "All of these people are wrong" and delete an article against unanimous consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like me to compile a report to prove that my AFDs have only been participated in by the same users? It's like trying to knock down a church and the only people who get a voice are the Christians that go there, so knocking it down becomes an impossibility.--Otterathome (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need. It's well-known that AfD is largely run by a group of regulars, but again, I don't see any evidence that they're singling out your nominations. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will tomorrow, see Mathieas (talk · contribs · count), they already tried stopping me nominating anymore via an ANI thread that went on for a over a week, but nothing ever happened because I did nothing wrong except nominate articles they care about for deletion. If deletion policy/guidelines were followed for this particular afd it would've definately been deleted anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading that AfD was quite depressing, several editors asserted notability without providing sources and others merely attacked the motivations of the nominator. A complete lack of policy and source-based discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Community topic ban proposal - Otterathome deletion discussions

    Since Otter is bent on demonstrating that he cannot participate constructively in deletion debates, I would like to propose the following remedies for community discussion.

    1. Otterathome is barred for one year from renominating for deletion articles that have previously survived a deletion discussion.
    2. Otterathome is not barred from opening deletion discussions.
    3. Otterathome is barred for one year from responding to anyone else's comments in a properly-opened deletion discussion anywhere besides the discussion's talk page.
    4. Otterathome is barred for one year from challenging anyone's qualifications to opine in a deletion discussion. If it's that blatant, someone else will take care of it.

    Note that per Wikipedia:Community ban, only uninvolved editors should be involved in reaching consensus here, so the rest of us need to sit on our hands. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that per Wikipedia:Community ban is if a has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, so do that first before proposing this.-Otterathome (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't strike it out, it just succeeds in looking ugly.  GARDEN  21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You just proved my point for me, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Otter, please do not edit other people's statements, even if you disagree with them. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way forward here. It's complicated, and people have to remember it.. how about just blocking him liberally if he continues to fail to "get it"? Yes, he's being quite unreasonable, but I'm not sure this kind of conduct problem would limit itself to only one area. Friday (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking would be easier, yes, but I don't think it would be better. Apart from his inability to back away from the horse, he's doing pretty good work, and I don't want to stop that: that's why I made explicit that I don't think he should be banned from opening discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with any kind of ban, that AfD discussion was deeply problematic. Otterathome requested sources and cited policy, the voters (because that's all they were) utterly failed to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary

    Resolved

    I don't know who to ask so I am posting here. This makes some sense because an administrator must do the work to fix this.

    Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

    The problem article is Geminoropa scindocataracta. This has been a dictionary definition for over two years. Minor edits include just adding categories.

    The text of the article is as follows:

    Geminoropa scindocataracta is a species of gastropod in the Charopidae family. It is endemic to Australia.

    That is a dictionary entry, not an article.

    Should we delete this until someone comes up with an article? Or delete the policy? Or create a new policy stating that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but some dictionary articles are permitted if the author states that the article is an exception". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but it's also a constant work in progress. I would say the only instance where an article should be deleted for being a dictionary entry is where the possibility doesn't exist that it could be expanded into an encyclopedia article. If you really think the article should be deleted though, you can nominate it for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's actually a valid stub article, the hope being that someone will come along and expand it. We have thousands of these, and as long as there is some sourced information, it's OK and doesn't offend against the WP:NOTDICT guideline. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STUB puts it well: "A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase." This article passes that test: it's about a snail. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I am a nice person. I do not go around trying to delete people's hard work. This makes more sense now. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Announcement

    Resolved
     – Message received loud and clear, an appropriate barnstar is reserved in the case of unblock.  Skomorokh  07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn’t know were to post this. I'm going to post this here if its ok.

    I am a new user on here. I made my user name on September 8, 2009 and this will be my first edit in the main space. Before I start to edit on here. I read all of Wikipedia, Policies and guidelines. I found the links to the Policies and guidelines on Template:Admin_dashboard on User:Black Kite/Toolbox. I put this Template on my user page. On the bottom of this Template it has lots of Administrator links and even links to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and New admin school and so on. Yes, I read everything and looked at all of the links. It took me around 2 weeks to finish.

    I just wanted to let you all know. So you understand why I know so much for a new user. ok. --Michael (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No new user ever has to defend their arrival or explain their level of knowledge. Now based on the above some will suspect you are, in fact, a previous user come back under a new identity. Whether this is true or not, there are 10 million users and 1680 admins. Hence we don't go examining new users until we have a reason to. Good editors who play by the rules are never a problem, don't get investigated and are ALWAYS welcome. So I shall assume good faith and welcome you on board. Regards, Manning (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, this user has apparently just been indeffed by Prodego. Until It Sleeps T • C 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, two weeks of waiting, and "Plaxico'd" after his very first edit. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Brandon also deleted his user page. However both Brandon and Prodego generally knows what they are doing so I'm not challenging. I left a polite question about it on Brandon's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirmed sock, still being investigated. Prodego talk 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who really thinks that WP:DUCK DIDN'T apply? A checkuser might confirm who the account is a sock of, but the nature of the account is as obvious as anything ever is around here. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more of a "negative duck", though - it's not clear what that account was up to, but it's clear that they fail any reasonable comparison with a legitimate new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Forgive me for the post resolved comment, but...) The duck wasn't merely walking, talking, and quacking, he was doing insurance commercials... (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) user:J aka justen (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Michael93555 (talk · contribs) and this sock was created September 8, the same day that Michael's other sock D climacus (talk · contribs) was blocked. He just plays games with us for entertainment value and is best dealt with by RBI. Sarah 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious if there's more than these two. Just glancing at his contributions I don't see any real disruption. D climacus was started two months after Michael93555, there's no overlap, he just restarted under a new name. And has done so again. I've seen admins abuse the sockpuppet policy more than this. Would it be reasonable for an admin to unblock on a condition that Michael volunteers to restrict himself to this current account and not create any more? --InkSplotch (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Digging deeper I've now seen the sockpuppet investigation on the original account, and understand the reason things have been closed out this way. I think if the user really wants back at this point, they might take their case to ArbCom as a community ban appeal. Maybe not really the exact way to go here, but it was quite a sockpuppet investigation. --InkSplotch (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    innapropriate behavior and page speedy deletion

    Resolved
     – WWGB didn't carry out any deletion; (s)he only restored an XFD tag.

    I would like to bring into attention of the board that the user WWGB is carrying out a speedy deletion of the article 2009 Sydney dust storm without meeting the criteria for him/her to do so. He/she is also threatening blocking another Wikipedia user, behaving as an admin without having admin privileges to do so (see my page). Please, can someone assist? Thanks. --Mhsb (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you are incorrect. The note is about a deletion discussion not a speedy deletion and thus the notice remian until the AFD is closed. Any user can warn another if they make inappropriate edits. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking a break from my tools

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

    Hello my colleagues. I have decided to take a break from using my admin tools for a while in the hopes of getting back the wiki-time I spend on these duties. It is my hopes that it will free my time up to participate in discussion and editing without the distraction.

    Please know that I have every intention of eventually resuming my janitorial duties here and that I apologize for shifting the work I normally do onto your backs. I have every confidence that things will be handled well in my absence.

    As part of this new direction I am exploring I have removed almost all users from my watchlist so that I can make a clean break from existing admin with various users. As such you may see a few users who are suddenly left without the admin guidance they previously had, once again I have every confidence that this will be handled well by others. If you wish to be on my watchlist mention it here or on my talk page.

    I did this for a few weeks are year or so ago and it seemed to be helpful to me as an editor, so here I go again. Chillum 01:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Admin guidance" is one way of putting it, but it wouldn't have been my first choice of phrasing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I for one would welcome Chillum's "admin guidance". RMHED. 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus Fatuorum, I am glad you came here to make sure that you will not be without guidance. I am sorry that I am not available for you as I have been in the past. Chillum 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just have to bumble along all by myself, without your "help". Good times. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like I always say, nobody deserves a good swift kick like the guy who's already conceded. Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ZOMG NO what will we do? Skinwalker (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This seems like a rather strange thing to archive after less than an hour... Not sure why that happened. I think people should still feel free to comment here though. Chillum 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages

    Hey all. Is there any issue lifting some ancient indefinite protections placed on talk pages? The list of pages is available here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages. A lot of them seem to be user talk pages where the user acted inappropriately (and thus got his or her talk page privileges taken away). These protections are no longer necessary. Most of these users have long since left the project, however these entries do add a lot of needless noise when looking at indefinite protections. If these users wish to return, they can't appeal their blocks on their talk page. In the unlikely event that one of these users returns and causes problems, they can be re-blocked with talk page access removed. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross post on RfPP, and I generally agree.--Tznkai (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'd be happy to help out if there is consensus to unprotect them. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a list of user talkpages, all of indefblocked or long-departed editors. I don't really see this as warranting priority attention, especially given that there's no reason anyone would want to edit these pages now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like something which probably should be done; however, it's low priority (so it should be done during times when Wikipedia activity is low); and if we include creation-protected pages in the list, we must immediately modify the blocks (since a lot of these come from someone who abused the edit privledge to create a huge page hich would frequently crash the web browsers). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I often wikignome around old protected user talk pages, and I agree these pages can be a minor annoyance when you're finding stuff to unprotect. I've often wondered what to do with them, and I've always just left them alone. We've unprotected most of the IP address talk pages (schools etc) where the users might change, but even so there are some IPs where every admin who has reviewed the protection has left them protected. And these are admins who like unprotecting stuff. Some of these pages, perhaps the majority of IPs by now, may be protected with good reason. I would not recommend using a bot, in fact I would recommend not unprotecting unless you're very clear on what you're unprotecting, and it won't always be apparent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't unprotect them blindly, there needs to be someone to recognize when an ancient protections are there for a very good reason. Perhaps the unblock e-mail address could be put on the ones that should not be unprotected. Chillum 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the above comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Low priority perhaps, but I enjoy the idea of a clutter free wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Newyorkbrad too. How is an old protected talk page of an indef blocked user clutter? It has none of the properties of clutter, it is certainly not in the way. It is a no-priority for me. Chillum 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with NYB. If they are eventually unprotected, we need to be sure to go back and modify the blocks to disallow talk page editing (the majority of these protections were before that option was available within the blocking options) because the majority from my glance at the list is of editors who had their talk page privileges revoked for legitimate reasons and I don't see the need to give that privilege back to them now. If necessary we can provide the email to ArbCom so they can appeal if they so desire. -MBK004 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any actual problem that this unprotection would solve. If it leads to any controversies being restarted, it could use up admin time for no good reason. If the issue is that Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages is too large, why not split off a separate group for just the protected user talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure it wasn't anyone's intention, but I really don't appreciate others trying to tell me where my volunteer time should be spent or how I should set my priorities. Further, I made no comment anywhere above that these pages were a high priority, so I also don't appreciate the suggestion that I did. The database report is months old; some of these protections are years old (that's decades in wikitime). I have no idea where this idea that I considered these high priority came from, but it's simply rude to try to put words into my mouth. I started a discussion about these pages on a discussion board because I wanted to see if there were legitimate issues to be concerned about with regard to these pages. If there are legitimate concerns, feel free to share them. Otherwise, please keep comments about anyone's priorities or use of their volunteer time to yourself. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely-blocked users might resume posting inappropriate comments on their newly-liberated talk pages. These issues might start to use up the time of admins generally, not just you. As a trivial example of some issues that would be created, some admins locked their own talk page on their departure. Will you disallow this? I have no argument with revisiting policy on protection of user talk pages in the future. Going into the past seems like looking for trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New wikitext syntax and 'bots

    This was announced on the wikien-l mailing list earlier this month, but the announcement on-wiki was … ahem! … somewhat understated. (Moral: Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the mailing list is no longer relevant.) The new <references>…</references> syntax, that was discussed back in July of this year, is now live on this wiki. More details, including an example article with this new syntax in use in its wikitext, and a notice about an unfortunate AWB problem that is now being fixed so that my stalker — SmackBot — is well again soon, are on the Technical Village Pump. Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice, please

    Hi!

    Someone has left an accusation on their old user page about my behaviour, and I have asked them to retract their accusation (This user is changing usernames, and left a note on their old user page what their new user name will be, and the reason behind it). I have also asked them to explain why they think I behaved improperly, so I can clear things up.

    Anyway, the reason for me posting this isn't for me to get the full weight of the admins on the case - to be honest, I don't think that will help matters; I would like to resolve this myself first. What this is about is that the user has not been online (well, has not made any edits with either the old or the new user id), and so the accusation is still there on his page.

    What is the general ettiquete for removing accusations from someone elses user page if they aren't active? It would be just my luck for the user in question to be on holiday for a couple of weeks, and have that accusation on there all that time; this is my reputation (such that it is), and I would like to keep it intact. Stephen! Coming... 09:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Check WP:NPA for guidance. But if it were me, I would turn them in to WP:WQA and let an admin take care of it. Although I doubt anyone woulf fault you for zapping it from that page. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. I'll remove the personal attack and leave a note on the user's (new) talk page. I won't report them to WQA just yet; I'll see how things pan out first.
    What would be useful for me would be if someone with a spare minute (or 30!) could check my interaction between myself and User:RuleOfThe9th, and let me know if I did do anything amiss, or could have handled things differently to have stopped things reaching this stage? Cheers! Stephen! Coming... 11:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock Check

    Have IP spammer problem who persistantly reappears adding url's to circumvent a current blacklisting. see(Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Liver_Health_Spam )Primarily reappears under the 117.... and 113...IP. I've rangeblocked;

    117.22.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    113.132.112.0/20 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    for 48 hrs. This won't lock too many out?--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocks look good to me. It looks like there are some occasional good anons on those networks, but it seems to be all spam for the last ten days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=315974892"