Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.103.96.80 (talk) at 06:36, 22 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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


    Userpage spam

    I have noticed a pattern of abuse that has been going on for a long time. Basically, a user creates a spammy entry in their userspace, and links to it from their userpage. See Seofon (talk · contribs) for an example. Other users just use a spam username and then add the spam to their userpage. I get this feeling that they are all related somehow. For example, after I filed an SPI case, the MO switched from adding a simple internal link to the subpage to saying "This is a sandbox to be saved for future use" next to the link. Does anyone know more on this? And does anyone have any idea how to stop this abuse while distinguishing from the innocent users? Triplestop x3 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've removed the stub from the article in Seofon's sandbox, since that's inappropriate for User space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for uninvolved admin to close merge proposal

    Please close the merge proposal at 350 (organisation). The situation is that some editors —with a long history of editing articles in order to minimise or deny global warming— are trying to downgrade-merge this article into Bill McKibben, arguing on "notability" and "inadequate sources" grounds, when they clearly have no leg to stand on. Please bring some sanity to the page. Admins with an interest in SCIENCE welcome. ► RATEL ◄ 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Uninvolved admin needed to assess "Future" template discussion (moved from ANI)

    Resolved
     – After about 2 hours of reading/thinking & 30-45 minutes of actually writing out my close, the discussion is now closed. Hopefully that solves the issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates has died down and requires an assessment by a neutral admin.

    A short rundown of the situation seems to be in order:

    • User:Conti began a centralized discussion in which he proposed the deprecation of all Future templates ({{Future}} and similar templates).
    • Discussion was closed by User:Tone as Deprecate.
    • Transcluded notices were added to all Future templates, warning of the deprecation and imminent removal.
    • User:Drilnoth got approval, and began running, a bot that started systematically removing Future templates from articles.
    • Some templates were successfully orphaned and tagged with {{deprecated}}, and some were also deleted afterward.
    • Users not privy to the discussion noticed the bot removal and noted their disapproval at cent, requesting that the bot be halted. These users expressed not only a protest to the decision, but also a general displeasure with the manner in which the proposal was handled.
    • Bot was halted voluntarily by Drilnoth pending further discussion. Drilnoth collapsed previous discussions and began a new RFC (on the same page). Further discussion ensued.

    That's about where we are now, though the discussion has since died down. A common dilemma throughout this process has been the question of whether or not the centralized "deprecation" discussion served as an actual "deletion discussion", or if TFD(s) should be required in addition, following the decision to deprecate. The admin who answers this call will need to provide such an assessment, in addition to providing a general decision as to the outcome of the discussion (ie. whether or not consensus exists to deprecate the templates).

    Thanks to whoever is willing to take this on. Equazcion (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical issue

    Resolved
     – New fangled technology... Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I figure I'll just stick it here because I don't have time to search more carefully.

    There's a strange problem with the article United States presidential election, 1808. If you view it in FF, IE, or Chrome (at least for the versions I have), the article appears as blank. Yet, the text is all there. If you look at the oldid it is still visible, and if you edit the page and hit show preview the article still shows up. I have no idea what's wrong with it. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's visible for me using Firefox 3.5.3; plus I've purged it so there shouldn't be a caching issue on the server end. Can you reload the page and see whether it still shows up as blank? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I swear it wasn't appearing 10 minutes ago, even though I had repeatedly refreshed and cleared my cache. Anyway, it's working now. Strange.... Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See this discussion at the technical village pump; the issue was caused by recent software updates. Graham87 08:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism

    Resolved
     – MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it. @harej 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I am the pre-eminent MFD closer, I am afraid I cannot close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism due to the fact that I participated in it. In the interest of keeping the backlog down, since it is overdue, can a neutral party please close it for me? @harej 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV/RFPP Backlogs

    Resolved
     – Both clear now. FWIW this seems more like an AN/I request :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV and RFPP need help. I'm a bit busy multitasking to take the time needed to review. Keegan (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page corruption

    Resolved

    Some type of corruption was introduced on this page from my edit at 06:03 UTC today. I don't know what could have done it but I'm working to get it fixed. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem was that Hu12 JzG|Guy posted a link to an old version of this page on Filmtvfan's talk page. I followed it here but didn't see that it was an old page because the link jumped to the bottom of the page causing the old page warning to not be visible. My apologies. I think it's all fixed now and I'll go cleanup the resulting archive mess next. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repaired the archive as well by removing the 20 threads archived immediately after my accidental page reversion. All 20 threads were already in the same file having been archived before my edit.
    Obviously we need {{D'oh!}} as a boilerplate for "I made a boo-boo" posts... :-) Guy (Help!) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas State University and Texas State University–San Marcos

    Resolved
     – AdjustShift (talk · contribs) reverted. Gabbe (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A follow anon has copied and pasted the content of Texas State University–San Marcos into Texas State University. I have no opinion as to which is correct, however, by copying the information, the edit history from the original article has been lost. Could an admin undo the copy and paste and do a move over the old material at Texas State University? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rename image request

    Resolved

    I understand that there is no easy way to rename images, but it is to my understanding that administrators could do so. I've received a request from a user to help them in renaming an image, so I've come here. =D Could someone rename [[File:Startegic_Barnstar.JPG]] to Strategic Barnstar.JPG? Thanks for your help! Netalarmtalk 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The problem is a spelling error when the file was first uploaded. Netalarmtalk 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It's now at File:Strategic Barnstar.JPG. --Masamage ♫ 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly unfree files backlog

    WP:PUF has a bit of a backlog... most recent discussions have been closed, but a number remain that are too complicated for me to feel comfortable closing seeing as how this is more legal-related stuff. If someone could take a look and try to clear out the remaining backlog, that would be great! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    General question about what to do with redirects after renaming files.

    Now that renaming (moving) files is possible again I decided to dive in and chip away at the file rename request backlog. However I'm not quite sure if I should leave the redirect behind or not after a move. Is there any consensus on this? So far I've been leaving them behind mainly because all the upload log entries still point to the old name, but assuming all other incoming links have been fixed to use the new name is there any point in leaving redirects like File:001237723.jpg and whatever behind? --Sherool (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well there is no need to fix the incoming links, anymore than you need to fix single redirects after page moves, so there isn't a need to really do anything. MBisanz talk 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the image looks unused (no "file links") if you just leave the image links pointing at the redirect, so I do tend to fix them when I rename a file. --Sherool (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, that sounds more like a bug than a feature. MBisanz talk 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving the redirects is probably a good idea as anyone viewing or restoring old versions will be getting the old name and the redirects would help here. In the case of really inappropriate names, this issue can probably be ignored (vulgar names, embedded personal names). This is a good new feature to have; many files have bad names. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Asterix_-_Cast.png

    By choosing one image that shows all the cast, one can get away with minimal use.

    By having the fair use rules applied stupidly, though, we end up with this, where the image is far, far too small to still show the content necessary for it to be useful to illustrate the comic.

    Can we reverse the "fair use reduce" here? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Low resolution doesn't mean too low to be useful. If the resolution is low details cannot be made out, then it isn't useful and doesn't belong in an article to start with.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The pith of the policy is Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used ... [without] high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. Legibility is not at all the same thing as high fidelity, or put another way, a graphic can be legible and still be a low resolution screen image. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    As mentioned and apparently deleted without response on this page, my account was unfairly blocked and inaccurately labeled an "SPA." Previous discussion on this page was prematurely interrupted by Tanthalas, who unilaterally imposed his own unblock conditions and unblocked and then re-blocked me, and stopped responding to my talk page comments after my unblock request (described by Jayron32 as a "compelling case for being unblocked") was clarified. Since he is now apparently on hiatus, I can't speak with him further. Mangojuice then unilaterally denied another unblock request and is now ignoring further comments I've made on my talk page that provide reasoning against the initial block. I'm again requesting that the discussion and consensus that was never achieved be attempted here in a fair and impartial manner. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=315455542"