Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MutantPlatypus (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 14 March 2010 (→‎Copylinks needing removal from Scientology talk page history: new section). 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Help with a redirect

    All I want to do is request moving a page (namely, I think "The Holy Bible" should redirect to the Christian Scriptures, not a rock album, which should be renamed "The Holy Bible (album)". I have been through several different pages, both help-type and adminiatrator pages, and can't figure out where I should go. Thank you. Squad51 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that it should redirect to Bible. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd need to visit WP:Requested Moves to invite discussion of The Holy Bible moving to The Holy Bible (album), with the redirect that such a move would create being pointed instead to Bible. Your proposal would move a page and break all links to it by retargeting the redirect (so all incoming links would need to be fixed, no laughing matter). This would be for the sake of making life slightly easier for people who type "The Holy Bible" into the search bar rather than "Bible" so that they don't have to click on "Bible" at the very top of the article about the album. I anticipate opposition to your suggestion. Note that Holy Bible (i.e. without the "The") already redirects to "Bible". BencherliteTalk 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Redirecting straight to Bible would actually be a bad idea because you'd have to have a hatnote at the top of Bible advising where the album article is situated (this might not be such of a problem for a minor rock album, but this one regularly appears near the top of "The Best n Albums of all time" type listings - it's a major work). I'd say either leave it where it is (there's already a hatnote pointing to Bible) or convert to a dab page, though someone would still have to fix a hell of a lot of links. Black Kite 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on the move, but I notice that quite a few of the links to the album page already go to The Holy Bible (album), which is currently a redirect, so there wouldn't be quite so many to fix as it might seem at first. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a cut and paste move? Look at the history for The Holy Bible [1], and specifically, this edit: [2]. Further, look at the talk page: Talk:The_Holy_Bible. Moreover, on The Holy Bible (album), this edit was made by an IP. Something seems off on this whole situation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the histories, you're right, this was a cut-and-paste move, apparently performed on 18 Feb 2010 by 144.138.242.93 (talk). The same IP also copied the talk page contents. I checked some of the direct links to The Holy Bible and they were for the book, not the album. Fortunately there have been no lasting edits to either page since the cut-and-paste, so I have just undone the cut-and-paste move. If someone wants The Holy Bible (album) moved to The Holy Bible, they can initiate that request at WP:Requested moves. --RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for lifting ban

    Categories Last year, User:Hiding gave me a sanction on adding and removing categories from a page under a "topic ban." In December, he told me that we would discuss lifting said ban in the new year. Since then, he has retired. I would like to get an admin to discuss this matter with me. Please post on my talk at your earliest convenience to settle this matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No ban on adding/removing categories is listed at WP:RESTRICT, where the following is listed
    • Koavf subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.
    • Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
    • Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages and other related discussions.
    Are you now appealing any or all of those? Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh No, just this. It might be nice to update the moribund status of Western Sahara articles (I was the primary contributor on the topic), but I don't want to get into that now. I just want to be able to add categories, as it's frankly very frustrating to refrain from all of the things I want to do (e.g. add Category:George Orwell to 11020 Orwell; that's been a bookmark in my browser for months.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, that topic ban was imposed by a single admin, and not as the result of a community discussion. I'm minded to rescind that, but would like to hear from other admins first. The restrictions logged at WP:RESTRICT would naturally remain in place until such time as an appeal is heard and granted. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's incorrect. Looking at this link (which was linked to above), it clearly states that the ban was put in place due to this discussion, where you see that the community had a consensus to sanction Koavf on this very same noticeboard. Anyone considering a lifting or modification of the ban should read that entire discussion thread to get an idea of why the bans were put into place. (And yes, I had to look closely to find the link too, so I don't blame you for missing it.) -- Atama頭 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this discussion is the more immediately relevant one for what Koavf is requesting now. I understand his request to be for a review of just the topic ban on adding/removing categories, which arose from the earlier sanctions but wasn't specifically discussed as part them. (I say this not as support or opposition for any change, but just to clarify what we are talking about.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin, can you clarify something. The categories you were moving - were they in areas otherwise covered by the original topic ban? Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The categories he was moving had nothing to do with Morocco or Western Sahara. The original speedy nominations (which were objected) are here, and an example of Koavf's edits can be seen here. I think Hiding's topic ban was based on the "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive" clause. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that Jafeluv. In that case, I'm minded to allow the appeal re categories only, if there is consensus that this is acceptable. The restriction listed at WP:RESTRICT will remain in place. I suggest that any movement of categories should be discussed first, and then carried out after discussion, not the other way round. Addition or removal of categories in good faith should not be seen as disruptive editing. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussing lifting the ban is one thing (and it's perfectly fine); misreading it to mean that we just lift the ban without any further thought is another. It's all very fine to say "the banning admin promised to discuss lifting the ban later", but I fail to see evidence that suggests anything has been learnt or something will change. In the absence of such evidence, I reject this appeal. Just because an action is taken in good faith doesn't mean that it's not disruptive; that is precisely why I crafted the primary restriction carefully in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of evidence would you like to see? I think it would be hard for him to prove he can change categories appropriately when he is under a ban from changing categories at all. The closest I could find is that he has nominated a number of categories for merging or renaming at WP:CFD in the four months since the ban. From the ones I reviewed, a majority were approved and none appeared to be disruptive. So from that I would be inclined to lift the category change ban, but I would be open to any other evidence about his recent behavior that would suggest otherwise. --RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably if Koafv has been careful to obey this restriction, even with categories that are altogether unrelated to contentious subjects, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, adding the Orwell category to the asteroid article is definitely not disruptive by itself (I did that after reading this thread, and I can't imagine someone becoming angry with me for doing that), and there's no way that such an action is a violation of community-imposed sanctions. As long as Koafv is careful to avoid category-related actions prohibited by the discussion, I don't see why he needs to be prohibited from working with categories altogether. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with RL0919 and Nyttend. Justin will be aware that what admins giveth, admins may taketh away. The example above of work at CFD shows that he has abided by the ban while it is in force, as does this request. I say cut a little slack and show a bit of trust here. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ RL0919; Well even what you've and Nyttend said does form evidence as Mjroots has rightly pointed out. The form of evidence I was particularly looking for was his acknowledgement/understanding of the issues that brought about the restriction, and assurances. I'm more open to cutting a bit of slack, but that evidence really would help, in my opinion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable thing to ask for. Justin, assuming you are monitoring this discussion, could you comment on your understanding of why the category-change ban was placed, and how you might do things differently now? --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have had this as a bookmark and checked in occasionally (I was out all day today medical testing, though.) Basically, the thing I was going to bring up was my respect of the CfD process and the fact that I am not otherwise seen as a particularly problematic or disruptive user. I have been brought up on AN/I for naught (I can provide diffs if necessary) and I'm enough of a veteran user that it's clear that my account is not for the purpose of disruption. I don't really know what else to add, honestly. You can respond here or on my talk if you need me (thanks to RL0919 for the heads-up.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin has been blocked 22 times, and although his edit warring is no longer his major problem, he has continued to do it, and doesn't seem to care when his interpretations clash with consensus. He was not brought up at AN/I "for naught", as he claims. There is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with Koavf, and at least it was finally dealt with by User:Hiding. I feel that he'll interpret the lifting of any sanctions as carte blanche to run amok through Wikipedia as he did before. Radiopathy •talk• 04:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    and "Retired" doesn't mean that people forget, or that they're not out there watching. Radiopathy •talk• 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiopathy I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion about this, as it's essentially irrelevant, but Radiopathy has a personal problem with me. Again, if anyone wants to investigate this matter, feel free or if requested, I will provide diffs. This is not the first time he has intervened to try to get me blocked/banned (none of them successful), and I fear this will not be the last. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is rather curious that you ask for the sanction to be lifted after both Hiding and I retired. Why now? Did you think your "adversaries" were out of the way and that no one would oppose your request? I don't have a "personal" issue with you at all. Radiopathy •talk• 06:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious? I have posted on Hiding's talk about a dozen times on this matter and the last time I went to it, he had retired. What else was I supposed to do? How is this curious? If Hiding was my "adversary" it's news to me. I definitely do not agree with his decision, but he was well-intentioned and I had a generally civil interaction with him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's not get too embroiled in the past. The issue we should be dealing with here is the request in respect of categories. Justin should understand that he will be, to some extent, under scrutiny by some other editors. The blocks mentioned were all under the previous name, and the last was a year and a half ago. This suggests that the restrictions imposed on him are effective, allowing him to edit productively elsewhere and keeping him away from the areas where his editing was not productive. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would like this to stay on topic - I've been looking intently for a sign that Koavf acknowledges or understands why the category-change ban was placed, and explain how he might act differently in the circumstances, but there's no direct response on the topic. The only thing I can see is he says he "respects CFD" which neither tells me anything, nor convinces me. The same goes for his pointing out of the obvious that he isn't a disruption-only account (which would explain why we as a community put him under these particular primary and secondary sanctions, as opposed to a site ban or long block from Wikipedia). Can we please have a direct answer to the actual question (which was restated by RL0919 above)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ban I know why the ban was placed—it's all in the discussion that's been linked but it's essentially a controversial (non-consensus) renaming of several categories that were at speedy CfD. They met a criteria that had been proposed but challenged and the speedy CfD process does not allow renaming if there has been some dispute. I suppose my rationale in bringing up regular CfD (and likely RL0919's above) is that I have shown a clear willingness to seek consensus rather than resort to a unilateral change; which is basically the inverse of the problem at the ban. Otherwise, you have my word to go on, which is simply that I won't make controversial/non-consensus changes of categories nominated for CfD, but that's a bit weaker than the substantial evidence that I just showed and is really implicit in the request to have a ban lifted. If someone wants to scrutinize my editing, that is fine and well with me; I'm pretty responsive on my talk and I've been willing to amend my behavior based on someone else's input (e.g. page moves or posting to talk regarding content disputes.) I can provide diffs if anyone wants; the most recent is this, but there hasn't been any response yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicitness can sometimes bite those who are ready to relax restrictions, so I preferred the more direct response. ;) I am satisfied with your response to my concern(s)/question(s), and accept your appeal to have the ban lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Justin's response and what I know of his behavior in this area since the ban, I also support lifting the topic ban on adding/removing categories. (No change to the other sanctions, which he is not currently appealing.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there is consensus to allow the appeal, so consider the appeal granted. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Thanks all (almost all); I appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    little heart?

    Is there a pecific reason the little "W" on my browser tab is now replaced by a heart icon? Was wondering if anyone knew if this was vandalism or or are we promoting something? Wasn't sure where to post this, so leaving it here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, this is awkward. Mr. Rowe, it's just...it's just that, well, w- we uh....we love you. <3 <3 <3 Sorry you had to find out this way, bu- but you're intimidatingly pretty to approach directly you see xxxx 86.41.87.146 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha, weeellll, bats eyes bashfully.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That little W is a favicon. Favicons are sometimes cached in your browser, which means that if the icon is changed on the site it may not change for you. It also means that the favicon in the cache for that site might get replaced with the favicon for another site through some glitch, that has happened to me before. If you happen to be using Firefox, some advice on fixing the icons can be found here. -- Atama頭 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This sign means you are now one of the Cabal's favourites.You will get special treatment in cases and your views will override those of more senior administrators.You can go flaming and editwarring with gleeful abandon and never risk being blocked. In certain cases,your views can override consensus on entire topics.You get special privileges and rights here and bonus gifts,such as the link to the hidden page with the Cabal rules on and indeed you get to visit Jimmy Wales' special secret place. Aren't you lucky? ;) Lemon martini (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday at RfAr

    Let's close this down now, shall we? Point made, from both directions; no need for further praise or ripe tomatoes. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content

    Since it strongly appears the Arbcom refuses to shine any sunlight on this, I will not be returning to Wikipedia. It's clear that any other process is likely to be met with the same abuse of oversight that hit the recent ANI thread, and made discussion impossible.

    If anyone wants to attempt to sort out the situation, my e-mail is available on my user page. I may be unable to resist, and peek at the Arbcom page tomorrow, but I have been away from Wikipedia for five months, returned this week to give Wikipedia a final chance to deal with the situation, and, having it been made clear that Durova - who represents the Wikipedia Foundation to several museums, including the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam and the New York Public Library - will be held to no conduct requirements. I will not be returning to editing, no images will be uploaded, and, brief flirtations with temptation aside, will not be monitoring any Wikipedia pages.

    Goodbye. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully you will return one day. Best of luck. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration is the wrong forum. I think you need mediation. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Your persistent arrogant edit-warring on WP:PLOT and other issues showed that you'd succesfully converted yourself from a productive editor into a disruptive time sink for everyone else. And I'm absolutely no friend of Durova. Don't let the door hit yourself on the way out. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here here.  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Well, you'll be missed I'm sure. Hopefully we can find someone else to take you place. Honestly, this pathetic whining "look at me I'm leaving please leave notes of love and addoration" crap is bad enough on talk pages, let alone ANI. What admin action do you want here Shoemaker? Someone resolve this and archive it. Dear me.Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlackJack

    BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this sockpuppet investigation.

    To summarise things for you, the problems fall into two parts.

    Part One - BlackJack claims he was followed to Wikipedia by a real-life rival. This is unproven, but what is fairly obvious from a walk through the edit histories is that he was subject to a certain amount of harrassment. To avoid the harrassment, he started using some alternate, undisclosed accounts. The sockpuppet investigation ended with a block of him for the technical offence of having participated in AfDs using alternate accounts. I'd note that there is no evidence that he votestacked any AfD by using more than one account.

    Part Two - having been blocked, BlackJack foolishly edited with some more socks (now blocked). I sent him an email and he apologised and said he'd stop.

    This is a very useful editor, whose incredible output of edits has massively increased the coverage onwiki of historic cricket, particularly the first 200 years or so of the sport's history. We're the poorer without him and I think he's been rather harshly treated - we should support people who are harrassed, not block them for technical breaches of WP:SOCK (ironically, a report probably placed by his harrasser).

    Interested, as ever, in the community's views on a proposed removal of block for BlackJack. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does it hurt to have a single undisclosed account editing AFDs when the point is to avoid harrassment? I think we should go with WP:IAR here, since the main reason for prohibiting socks from editing projectspace is to avoid votestacking. I solidly agree with you that this block shouldn't have been levied. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support unblocking ASAP. I am also going to boldly remove the tag on their userpage, as it is false: it says that the user has abusively used multiple accounts when it is quite clear that the accounts were not being used abusively. The user should notify ArbCom about any alternate accounts they use in the future as a precaution so their harasser cannot get them blocked for sockpuppetry. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, I guess, but only if the user requests as such through normal processes on his/her talk page. Any further argument/support/discussion can happen there. Tan | 39 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support an unblock per Tan. Our system is often inadequate in dealing with harassment, but there's not much we can do other than use the mechanisms that we do have. In any case, I hope that issue has been dealt with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll drop him a line. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tentative support. I'd like to see an unblock request on his page listing his socks, explaining that he understands where he ran afoul of policy and committing to not doing it again and to take a bit more care with edit summaries (infantile stupidity?) while reverting blatant vandalism. The WP:Standard offer might be appropriate here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure a six month block is needed or helpful to Wikipedia. It's been nearly a couple of months so far, and all we've damaged is ourselves. The point has been made and prolonging the block seems punitive and compounding the error we made with the original block, which was, I think, insensitive. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I Support his unblocking. Although I have no connection to this case, looking through his contribs I think that he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. I think that we all know how easy it is to break a policy in good faith, which is what this looks like, so I support his unblocking. He should be made clear that sockpuppets are not acceptable, though, and that he will be blocked if he continues to use them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I Support as to Ajraddatz, I have no connection either but after reviewing his contrib's there is no doubt to his value to this project. Having said that, this user must refer to proper (with the lack of a better term) channels to (again better term) defend his "one" account Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as an unblock would doubtless lead to a net gain for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I blocked the most recent sockpuppet. In truth, that sock was at the time being used to expose sockpuppets of a different editor, see here, and BlackJack was only guilty of block evasion, not disruption. (I also blocked the sockpuppet of Richard Daft that BlackJack was exposing.) I support an immediate unblock on the condition that the editor never uses another sockpuppet again, or at the very least makes a clear connection to any alternate accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Since I see no actual disruption caused by the editor or their sockpuppets, and they have apologized, I see no reason to keep the editor blocked. -- Atama頭 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Never vote-stacked?? What was this then Dweller? BlackJack using two of his socks to get an article deleted after the first nomination, also started by himself, proved unsuccessful. I suggest that before this compulsive sockpuppeteer is unblocked an admin takes a look at what BlackJack really used these accounts for, such as 'flushing out' another user who he had a disagreement with.[3] This was no minor infringement of policy as Dweller would try to have you believe. An admin should also look for this supposed harassment, which appears a totally unfounded excuse which BJ has trotted out repeatedly as a defence for his actions. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First, hello Richard! I was wondering when you'd show up. Second, yes that's votestacking as both User:The bowling of a ghost and User:JamesJJames are sockpuppets of BlackJack, which should be taken into consideration. I'd say that BlackJack should be restricted from using alternate accounts altogether in light of that, but I still think an unblock is allowable. I'd also like to see evidence of harassment, if it's being alleged. Though the lack of such evidence would still not remove your block, Richard. -- Atama頭 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First I'm not Richard, if you had check the most recent BlackJack SPI you'd see there was a request for my IP to be checked against BrownEdge/FirstComrade (Richard Daft socks) and the CU showed up nothing. I won't hold out for an apology. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.39.197 (talk) [reply]
    Could we get the above sock blocked for longer than 48? Clearly using multiple IP (jumping perhaps) to get around the many blocks in place. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to note that CU confirmed that I was correct (or that it is at least "likely"), and the IP is Richard. See here. The "CU showed up nothing" argument won't fly anymore. In the SPI that the IP referred to, the IP was never checked against Richard Daft, but rather one of Richard's sockpuppets. Which means that Richard had a different IP when using the socks, which is technically possible. (Those socks were blocked on behavioral evidence, not technical.) As to extending the block for longer, as you pointed out Richard uses multiple IPs so what would that accomplish in the long run? I expect him to move on to something else in the next 48 hours as this dies down, so the length seems appropriate. -- Atama頭 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the IP isn't Richard, the checkuser merely said it was likely based on the evidence presented, if he had run a CheckUser, like Luk did, then he would have seen I have nothing to do with the Richard Daft account and it's socks. A simple SPI would clear this all up, but so far no one is prepared to open it. I'm not going to go away while people continue to make false allegations, so take it to SPI or stop making allegations, it's your choice. --88.111.60.218 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page creation

    Hello! Would an admin mind creating User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb/𪷎𪷉𪷄𪸘𪸘𪵞 for me per the discussion here? Thanks! Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's that after the /? My computer shows a bunch of numbers and letters in boxes. I can't create it, but creating a title with incomprehensible number-letter-in-box things is somewhat alarming. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously it's some characters not supported by your (or my) chosen font. I wonder what it says... - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created it. The title looks like | || || || || || | Each character is basically two pipes separated by a miniature space. Judging by the very unusual text on the page, I'm guessing that Ecw.technoid.dweeb is using it as some sort of sandbox. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Help_desk#User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb.2F.F0.AA.B7.8E.F0.AA.B7.89.F0.AA.B7.84.F0.AA.B8.98.F0.AA.B8.98.F0.AA.B5.9E, as I said above. I discussed the title further there. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The handling of page protection involving banned users with IP sockpuppets

    There seems to be a problem with how admins deal with protecting pages where time-wasting banned users are using anon accounts to influence pages.

    I first thought about this last month when Greco-Persian Wars was fully protected. A time consuming rfc was initiated with several editors wasting a lot of effort before things were escalated to WP:ANI and it was accepted that User:Orijentolog was using IPs to curcumvent his block.

    I have encountered a similar problem today at Jewish Internet Defense Force. Here it is User:Einsteindonut who is using IPs to circumvent a block. Not for the first time, the admins have responded to my request for semi-protection with a full-protection and encouragement to use the talk page and dispute resolution processes to deal with what is really a time-wasting perma-blocked user.

    I have initiated an SPI for the various anons used by Einstendonut. However, there seems to be a systemic problem whereby the admins who patrol the requests for page protection refuse to look at evidence that there are bad faith time-waisting users circumventing their edit blocks.

    It is this repeated pattern of admins misreading the situation as one of edit-warring between good faith editors rather than one of block-evaders being reverted that I am bringing to your attention, rather than an attempt to rehear the most recent page protection request. What do you think can be done to help sysops get things right in future?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this is a definite problem; what is the point of blocking users, if they can block-evade at will simply by changing IP addresses? There is usually no point in trying to discuss content with them; and besides which, if they are blocked, then they have lost the "right" to have input anyway. It just results in a waste of time for other editors.
    I suppose the main problem is that it takes time to process check-user requests, to establish whether sock-puppetry is definitely going on. I guess that administrators are generally not willing to semi-protect pages unless they have proof of abuse. Plus, as you say, some will misread the situation as simple edit-warring.
    However, there are now some admins out there with experience of this problem (certainly those from the Greco-Persian Wars incident). I wonder if it is a good idea to establish an informal group/panel of admins who understand this problem (from experience), and who could be approached in cases like this. They would be willing to semi-protect, if provided with sufficient evidence of suspicious editing by IP addresses, without waiting for absolute proof (which they would request at the same time). I suppose the main problem (apart from maybe violating some wikiprinciples that I've forgotten about) would be that the average editor wouldn't know where to go to find these admins.  M.F.B.T.  Yes, Minister? 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If a blocked editor is using IPs to POV-push on his favorite article, the situation is usually obvious and does not require a checkuser. (The evidence is really behavioral). In such a case it should be easy enough to report at WP:AN3, WP:SPI or WP:ANI. At any of these boards, the admin who closes the case will often be willing to issue any semiprotection that is needed. I think that WP:RFPP is not the best place to take such complaints, because it does require a bit of investigation. RFPP is quick, but it is usually for things that can be handled immediately by one admin with no need for discussion or a lot of study. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in today's case I have initiated [[4]] after the problems at RFPP and when the first admin said in reply to a personal post that (s)he would change the block if I produced evidence of an unambiguous SPI finding. An admin has supported my application to SPI though he regards himself as involved and therefore unable to take action himself. I was reluctant to use ANI in this case because of all the messages asking if I was sure I was at the right page. I'm getting the impression that SPI is longer-winded than ANI though Einsteindonut has kindly produced yet another IP sock pretending to be a new user and not the same as the other ids that behave in the same way. Are yoyu saying it is fair to go for ANI even if I am ignoring some of the directions? I suppose that it's a case of IAR. As for AN3, the socks haven't actually violated 3RR today. I went for RFPP at the point that I would have made my fourth revert even though the first three were all labelled as reverts of blocked users. I thought things might get misinterpreted at AN3, instead they were at RFPP.
    Next tiem I'll go straight for ANI or get the sysop bit myself.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted. Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way. All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above post is, of course, made by a sockpuppet operated by Einsteindonut and/or a meatpuppet from the JIDF boards.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats from Papua New Guinea

    There is a rather silly argument going on at Michael Somare about repeatedly using his full grandiose title, "Grand Chief His Excellency The Right Honourable The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare", throughout the article. This has resulted in threats that expatriates in PNG involved in wikipedia will be deported. I have protected the article. I mention it here only because I am going to mostly off wiki until late Sunday Australian time. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that the argument may be being trumped up, at least in part, by political opponents of Grand Chief His Excellency the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare to make him or his supporters look absurd. In any event, no dispute about the protection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like clear-cut trolling to me Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think that someone in Brisbane using retail internet has anything to do with diplomatic ties between Australia and Papua New Guinea.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Theoretically, you've violated policy by using your admin rights to gain the advantage in a dispute, but I think we can IAR that in this case :-) I've added a further comment on it and warned the IP that I'm immune to any threats, since I've never been to the country. On the protection time — is it necessary to semiprotect indefinitely? I've never heard of Grand Chief His Excellency The Right Honourable The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare before, let alone seen his article, so I don't know if it's vandalised enough to justify indefinite semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In cases like these I see indefinite protection as protection until the argument dissipates, not protection for eternity. I am sure it will be unprotected in due course. Woody (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend is correct that I violated policy by using my admin rights to gain the advantage in a dispute, but as he said I was IARing here. I will remove it on Monday, but I am about to go to another conference session for 16 hours and tommorrow is similar. A problem was that other edits were being reverted by this IP. It is all rather silly. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for discussion

    Comments, criticism, or even a simple "yea, saw this" would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Categorization.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI backlog

    SPI/checkuser is quite backlogged. We need clerks, checkusers and regular admins who are good at analysing behavioral evidence to hop over and pitch in! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention backlog

    Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is pretty backed up. Woogee (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoinks! Someone has been busy... —DoRD (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move assistance

    Resolved

    Can and admin move Academic All-American to Academic All-America.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged Academic All-America with {{db-move}}. It was pointed at All-America, which is probably why the ESPN program article was created at Academic All-American (whoever started the article about the ESPN progeram really should have simply overwrote the redirect, but C'est la Vie). For future reference though, see WP:RM, as there is a Uncontroversial moves section on there for just this sort of thing. Oh, I hatnote'd the ESPN program article as well, by the way.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick question regarding "Attribution issues"

    Resolved

    Quick question (hopefully) here, since I am getting stuck in a mess about attribution issues and want to ensure I am grasping the idea correctly here:

    If someone userfys an article via a copy and paste, and that article is later deleted, along with a redirect to it which had merged information in it, is there an attribution problem here? The page in question is User:TheChrisD/Ctrl+Alt+Del. The original article Ctrl+Alt+Del was effectively closed as "Delete and redirect", except the delete part was not performed. I ran into the entire scenario after deleting a redirect under G8, as the animated series was now pointing to the keyboard combination after the AfD close, thus I deleted the old revisions of Ctrl+Alt+Del and restored the redirect to allow the redirect to be deleted without GFDL issues, as it had no relevant target.

    Thus I now have the scenario of that userfied copy representing over 2,400 revisions from two different pages, and am unsure what should be done here. Do the two pages need to be restored and moved somewhere to be GFDL compliant?

    Sorry if this is a confusing messy message, but I am in a bit of a confused mess myself now over all this. Thanks for any help in advance, --Taelus (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant links:

    --Taelus (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The history needs to visible if the content is, yeah. Delete the userfied version, undelete the deleted mainspace version, move the mainspace version to the userspace location, then undelete the deleted revisions that were in the userspace (if necessary). Probably, you then want to delete the automagically made redirect from the mainspace to the userspace. WilyD 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought so, should I histmerge both the "Animated Series" and main article into one place in their userspace then? That way all the revisions are there in one place. --Taelus (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll go ahead and perform the undeletes/moves/re-deletes/other mess then, so that all the history is visible. :) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at TFD

    Could someone close or relist this one from February 20? I can take care of any closing issues (e.g., orphan, modification, redirection, ...), once it has been closed. If that one is already closed, it would be great if someone could look at March 3, which is about 3 days overdue. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copylinks needing removal from Scientology talk page history

    On the talk page for The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, I placed links to illegally-hosted Scientology publications without realizing they were illegal. I've since removed them, but they remain in the page history. There's about 4 revisions between when I posted them and when I removed them. here is a diff between the first revision containing the links and the first one in which they are removed. Should you delete the intermediate revisions? MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=349729358"