Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.49.140.141 (talk) at 14:43, 1 March 2011 (→‎Enforced Wikibreak: 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation were listed at WP:CENT and archived by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC (initiated 3 January 2011) and Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at WP:CENT and were archived a few days ago. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved this back from the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

    The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

    The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

    Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

    If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

    For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this

    New Accounts all creating the same page

    It seems we have very many new accounts registering this morning and creating the same userpage (you can see an example here). My initial guess is that this is a school project. Does anyone have more info? TNXMan 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That was my guess too. I've been keeping an eye on a few of them, and haven't seen either vandal edits nor edits to some school project page yet. Syrthiss (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that you try something new, radical and untried - talking to them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to imply these accounts are doing anything "wrong" - I was just curious and wanted to know if anyone had more information about what was going on. In a lot of cases, projects like this are listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, but I didn't see a listing. TNXMan 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They may not know about that page, or about WP:Ambassadors either. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Message left. Let's see how it goes, I suppose. TNXMan 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome! Admins actually left a sensible message to the relevant accounts instead of stomping in their heads and driving away a whole classroom away from wikipedia. It brings a tear of joy to my eye. Damn, I am a sentimental. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get your hopes up; this is (assumably) a school we're talking about... HalfShadow 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you cry at the end of Old Yeller too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What is going on with new user's user pages?

    Of late, I've been patrolling the user creation log, looking for vandalism and conflict of interest accounts. I've noticed a change recently, in that it appears that if a new user creates an account, and then attempts to create their userpage, it's automatically replaced with some introductory help content. Example: User:Alvaradohector. This makes it rather difficult to target newly created vandal accounts using the user creation log. What's going on with this? What's the change? Anyone know where this was discussed? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not automatically placed, rather the accounts are the ones placing it there. See a couple sections up, although no one seems to know who/what it is. TNXMan 19:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like maybe it's sockpuppets. An admin is blocking the accounts now. Here are possibly related accounts: User:Eastleigh 9 and User:Doctorgeo. These could be sleeper accounts, made to look inconspicuous by using boilerplate user pages, and then used later on. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones have been blocked? TNXMan 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first account I mentioned. It looks like that's the only one the admin has blocked for now, but if you link to the other accounts that you said you've seen with this template on their user page, then it may reveal more sockpuppets. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just come across one of these myself: User:Jtobben. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the purpose of the accounts, the ones I have come across are not editing constructively - another example: User:AndersJepson. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All signs are pointing to sockpuppets, considering the speedy deletion templates on these account's talk pages. This is probably how most sockpuppet farms are born. Here are a few more: User:Coacocoa, User:MarkAnchorAlbert, User:Pathboard, User:Tina Richter, User:Kirbyolson2, User:Kimsession, User:JohnHultgren, User:ScottsRun, User:Anubhavawasthy, User:Caseynyt, User:Lonimeier, User:Kstrongh, User:Stjago, User:Akmalzhon, User:DCFC109, User:Seaninmcc, User:Jessica T Ortiz, User:Momo8520, User:Berubetiffany, User:JasonBoy123. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think they are socks. Also, the sheer number of accounts (10+ in the last thirty minutes and many, many more earlier) is a scope far beyond anything done by a vandal/troll (in my experience) before. I think this is a software thing. Would someone be willing to create a new account to give it a whirl? TNXMan 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    10+ in thirty minutes isn't very much. Someone could create dozens in a minute if they wanted to. These boilerplate user pages are only on about 5% of the most recent new users. If it was a software thing, then 100% of new users would have the template. I'm not saying for sure that these are sockpuppets. For instance, perhaps there's a website that's promoting Wikipedia editing to their own visitors by asking their visitors to register on Wikipedia, copy some text to their user page to help them get started, and then contribute to Wikipedia by editing around. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found User:Adebed, who made this edit which could shed some light on who these guys are. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, three randomly selected accounts from the group you mention geolocate to cities thousands of miles apart. To me, this points to another cause. I did initially think, however, this was a coordinated spamming effort, as you say above. TNXMan 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps just a coordinated attack on a forum. This user bothered to edit their user page so perhaps they are human after all, rather than created by a bot. Another edit. And another, UK-related, which seems to be a theme. In any case, everything we've mentioned are just possibilities until we know more. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a software feature, please AGF

    Just created an alternate account, User:DuncanHillTestAccount. On creation, the first thing you are presented with is a big button saying "now create your userpage". Click it, and it opens the edit box ready filled in with the intro stuff we are seeing on these new userpages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay that's good, I guess that's new. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I wish, though, someone would have mentioned it - the feature seems like it was just turned on today and I don't remember seeing an announcement anywhere. TNXMan 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was just turned on today. Found it! Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so is the blocked account going to be unblocked with an apology then? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is going to happen with all new users, then the welcome message templates need changing so they don't duplicate the user page. Nice idea but it has its downside as spotting new users/possible vandals becomes more difficult. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a small number of new users have that template user page (something like 5% of new users). I'd figure the talk page welcome template is sufficient, especially since it shows the "You've got new messages" banner to draw the user's attention. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an outreach thing. The actual template is here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocked accounts were based on their edits and not on their possible connection with previously blocked sockpuppets, so I don't think they will be unblocked. It's up to the blocking admin though, ultimately, who was not involved in this discussion that's going on right now. Their block was a separate matter. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (reply to Mjroots) The only blocked account of which I'm aware is User:Eastleigh 9, which is a  Confirmed sock of User:Crouch, Swale. If there are other accounts, however, they should be unblocked (if the reason for the block was the userpage creation). This is exactly the problem Dougweller points out - spotting vandals becomes slightly more difficult with this feature enabled. TNXMan 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. I just got the impression that an editor had been blocked for creating the user page with the new feature. If a sock has done that, it's still a sock. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not making this announcement more visible. As a relative newcomer to English Wikipedia (I have edited Swedish Wikipedia since 2005), I have done my best to announce as widely as I knew how:
    • on wikien-l
    • on foundation-l
    • on the community portal
    • on the MediaWiki messages page
    But now you know about it, I hope that we will see some very interesting results from these tests. There are a couple of different confirmation pages we will test. You can see them all here before they are launched. And please, take this opportunity to add your own suggestions by creating a version of any of the pages yourself.
    If you have any questions about the tests, don't hesitate to contact me.
    Best wishes//SvHannibal (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's worse than useless, and it will make newpage patrol in userspace (where there is a shitload of spam, defamation, and children spewing information about themselves) MUCH more difficult. Get rid of it. I know you meant well, but it's not helpful at all. DS (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing DragonflySixtySeven, whilst we appreciate your innovation and hard work this is just simply a total hinderance - at least on en.wikipedia. The minor, minor, minor positives are far outwayed by the negatives detailed above during new page patrol. Let's get rid of it - quickly please. Pedro :  Chat  23:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a total (or indeed any) hindrance. Vandals can be recognised by their edits, not the colour of the userpage link. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What about people who post spam in their userspace? What about people who post horrible defamatory garbage about their school friends in their userspace? What about young children who say MY NAME IS JOEY MCPSEUDONYM, I AM TEN YEARS OLD AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS 555-1212, I GO TO HYPOTHETICAL ELEMENTARY in their userspace? These are needles in haystacks. This change enables greatly-increased hay production. DS (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree vandals are recognised by their edits, but blatant spam in userspace (which is far more relevant here), simple 4chan trolls and foolish socks are often neatly identified via the user creation log and promptly blue user page. Let me use the expression "low hanging fruit"....The facts are simple. Rapidly blue linked userpages are often a likely cause for concern and I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to how this "create your userpage" button helps new users. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    It helps them by pointing them to useful information about how to contribute positively and find help. It does lack the warning we should give to all new editors - "As a new editor, you will be regarded with fear and suspicion by many editors". DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does nothing the welcome template doesn't already do.©Geni 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, because new editors are highly unlikely to be able to find any of the welcome templates by themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why it'd dropped on their talk page. Something which could be done by bot since it appears we are no longer worried about appearing impersonal.©Geni 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for many users it isn't put on their talk page. Even editors who manage to find the help desk often go unwelcomed. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats because we've history felt that automated systems are impersonal. If we are withdrawing from that position we can automatate the welcome template.©Geni 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On some non-English Wikipedias you get an automatic message on your user talk page the first time that you visit as a logged in user, whether or not you make an edit. This happened to me at the Latvian, Malayalam and Ukrainian Wikipedias. Perhaps our message would be better in user talk space, not user space. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This also happens at commons. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If this system can add Template:Your user page to the new user's page, surely it can be adjusted to add it to the new user's talk page instead?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted

    I've BOLDly reverted the change, at least for now, because it's quite problematic in terms of patrolling new userpages. I've notified SvHannibal: User_talk:SvHannibal#MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. In short, I realise that while he's doing a WMF project, a change of this scale really should be discussed with those who are patrolling new userpages for very problematic content, so that a mutually acceptable position could be reached. Maxim(talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why NPP should have a special status in any consultation. If it is to be discussed it needs to be with anyone interested, not just with your special interest group. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, Maxim wasn't implying that new page patrollers should get some kind of special status when making decisions about this feature. He's simply saying that since it is effecting them a lot more than most other areas of Wikipedia, that it's important they be made aware of the issue. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they patrol WP for libel, spam, defamation, minors posting all their personal info that they can think of, et cetera,... If you cannot see why it is important to remove such content, I really can't help you further. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never suggested that it wasn't important to remove such content, I have no idea why you suggested I did. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that the reversion might be a good idea - more discussion is often a good thing. However, I think it's important to note that while the new page patrol project is undoubtedly important, making the argument that it is more important than Foundation trials to increase user participation in the project to such an extent that such trials should not take place requires rather more than one or two unhappy patrollers, in my honest opinion. Ale_Jrbtalk 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument--and that of DragonflySixtyseven for instance--is more that the expedient removal of libel, spam, personal information of minors, etc., shouldn't be compromised by a test. Maxim(talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism is more difficult to find when there are lots of edits made compared to when there are few, but having more edits is nevertheless beneficial and should be encouraged - regardless of the possible inconvenience to those who choose to spend their time patrolling recent changes. I think that this may hold true here as well. It's perfectly plausible that making it easy for new users to create userpages with boilerplate, useful information won't increase user retention at all... but then, that's why they were trying to run a trial. If it turns out that it does increase user retention, and increases contributions, then it is beneficial for us - even if it means that people who choose to patrol new user pages have to do more. Ale_Jrbtalk 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reason falls down when it fails to address why we should trial this possibility over any other.©Geni 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason doesn't fall down because your statement is generally irrelevant. The point being queried is the effect of any trial or system on the work of NPP - which is a reasonable discussion. However, my argument asserted that the outcome of this trial may be more important than its affect on NPP; the specific nature of the trial possibility being run, or the potential existance of alternatives, is beside the point.
    Further, I'll point out that in practise, in order to determine the best way of doing something, it is usual to test several methods and choose the best one; that is the definition of a trial. In order to receive good data, this also involves trialling methods one at a time. We should trial this method over any other, because it was chosen first, and other trials cannot be run simultaneously. I believe the original announcement contained a place where they'd love to hear about your thoughts on other possibilities. Ale_Jrbtalk 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it any easier for a new user to find the button for their user page instead of the button for the help page? I support outreach, but if people are having trouble finding help, let's deal with the root issue. If we are forced to auto-create userpages, at least set the edit summary to some standard template thing for all trials to make NPP slightly easier. Unfortunately, we then need to instead patrol user space RCs for new users. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative approach

    This sounds like a bot job. A bot could be set up to add the {{Welcome}} to the talk pages of new accounts, leaving the user page alone. At the same time, a message could also be placed on the talk page giving details of how to create a user page and what may and may not be there, along with details of what may be added but needs careful consideration as to its implications if it is added. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from SvHannibal

    I am sorry for any inconvenience I have put anyone through here. And I am perfectly fine with the revert, as long as we can find a way to solve the question that we are wrestling with: how to get the people that create accounts to become active editors. Do you have any thoughts about this? Any thoughts that we can put on Mediawiki:Welcomecreation? One suggestion that builds on Mjroots suggestion above is to forgo the template page (which was inspired by the Polish Wikipedia, where they have seen an increase in new accounts becoming active after implementing this feature) - and instead have all that information as "editintro" (the text that you see above the edit box). Another is to point the new users to articles they are interested in. A third is to point them to some very easy edits (what would that be? Patroling new articles? The wishlists? What else?).

    I know that many of us have difficulties leaving our home wiki - in this case English Wikipedia. But it would help a lot if we try to be even bolder than reverting the Mediawiki:Welcomecreation and together sketch out a few solutions - on the Outreach wiki. Put up your proposals here.

    On that page you can also see the next page that we intend to test and give comments and edit that page so that we test something that will not make things worse. One way or another, we should find a way to increase the number of edits that newcomers make.

    Thanks, and again, I am sorry. Best wishes//SvHannibal (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    since the pages appear to be exclusively in english and refer only to wikipedia is there any reason not to have this work done on en?©Geni 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we will roll this out globally. We have just not started translating yet, but we will in the week to come. The results may vary on different language versions (on some newcomers may be welcomed personally because that is what works in that culture, and in another that would be awkward or impractical, for instance). But keeping the results in one place makes it easier to get an overview of what works on the most language versions.//SvHannibal (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? While results can be recorded on a centeral page it makes little odds if the links between the various approaches are interpage of interwiki. In fact trying to do things as a part of a centeral wiki has some massive downsides. You lock out anyone who doesn't have at least a passing grasp of the english language. You take the project away from the people who work on their wiki on a day to basis and instead end up with the rather smaller subset who get involved with foundation side stuff. You create yet another "us" which means from everyone elses POV you are a "them" which is not great if you actualy want people to work together.
    But even if we were to accept your position that there are advantages to keeping the whole program in one place the fact is you have not yet moved beyond the english wikipedia and the english wikipedia has an export function which can be used to move stuff offwiki when the time arrives.©Geni 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the only obstacle, go ahead. The main focus should not be "where should we have this?" but "how should we solve this question?", right? As long as we link to places where I can find it for when we are trying to make these tests globally, I am happy. Do you have any suggestions?//SvHannibal (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    thats not actualy a coherent responce to what I wrote.©Geni 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In what respect do you feel I have missed your point? You suggested that we keep this on English Wikipedia and I said "okay, as long as we keep the discussions linked and focused on finding a solution to the problem at hand". What I could have included is a "good point", but it's because English is not my first language.
    My main question now is: Where should we plan other pages that are non-destructive, on-target and potentially effective? Here? On MediaWiki_talk:Welcomecreation? On this subpage to my user page? Where else? I am open to suggestions.//SvHannibal (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A more central location on this Wiki would indeed be helpful. Just looked at the welcome message. "If other people haven't yet covered a topic, then we probably shouldn't either.". We do want users to still create articles right?? Garion96 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, here on en.wiki, it depends on who you ask. There seems to be a rather sizable sub-set of editors who feel that new articles are not needed here, now. go figure.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people is Code for WP:RS. If you want to sneak something in without people noticing the mediawiki talk pages are good (except sightnotice and watchlist details people actualy watch those). Otherwise WP:VP/PR and poke the signpost.©Geni 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very difficult to predict all the side effects of a change. I do NPP sometimes, and I also knew about the trial from the mailing lists -- and then actually went and looked at the proposed changes, but I did not guess the problematic interaction. I think everyone proposing changes of this nature know there is generally an advantage in trialing on a smaller wiki first, but this was trialed on a smaller wiki and for whatever reason did not produce the problem there. But we caught this here pretty early on, as we should have. Now that SvH knows where we announce things, the subsequent trials will go better, but some things not visible on the most careful checking will nonetheless produce problems in actual use. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DGG, for that summation. To start a workspace here on enwp, I offer this subpage to my user page. Anyone may move it to another place, but please notify if you do so I can make new links on the Outreach wiki and elsewhere. I have also written to the Signpost about this.//SvHannibal (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now test nr 3 is up and running. I will try to monitoring the situation, so let me know if anything odd happens. As you can see there is a button to create a user page, but it doesn't preload the page with anything, so perhaps fewer new users will create user pages just because they have the content for them already there.//SvHannibal (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to encourage new users to make userpages, can we please at the same time explain to them briefly what user pages are not for? I am worried by the number of new users who set up User:XYZCompany and copy onto the user page the promotional spiel from their company website, and by people who think this is LinkedIn and put up a long autobiography and CV. A sentence or two on the lines of

    Please note that the userpage policy says that "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website". You should use it to say a little about yourself, if you wish, to help communication with the other volunteers who are here to help build the encyclopedia. It is not a place to post a full autobiography or CV, or to use for any kind of promotion.

    would save them from unnecessary frustration and disappointment. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories

    Would an admin close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD is backlogged

    Would several admins close the discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? There is a two week backlog, with some discussions nearly a month old. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, JohnCD (talk · contribs), Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), Scientizzle (talk · contribs), Skier Dude (talk · contribs), and others for clearing the backlog. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SpeakFree

    I did paint myself in a corner when I declared my absense on NL:WP. But I continued under my IP address. And made the mistake of registering under the account name JosefK. But is a year-long ban appropriate for that?? I can't help thinking that my listing of Soviet leaders under the Dutch category Dictators helped precipitate this year-long ban. And I couldn't contact the moderator MoiraMoira who enforced the ban in any way after it had occurred (I mailed Dutch WP but didn't get a response). 82.170.244.87 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't seek to be restored anymore. Once again cowards use my absense to delete my contributions. Goodbye! 82.170.244.87 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ to my en-wiki colleague admins: Concerns a blocked sockpuppeteer/pov pusher/falsificator active on en-wiki as well. Has been blocked indef on nl-wiki indeed after continued sockpuppetry abuse despite earlier leeway given. The results of checkusers and description in english can be found here. I leave it up to you to deal with is according to your local policies. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MoiraMoira, not quite sure of the situation here. Understand that a sockpuppeteer (SpeakFree (talk · contribs) ?) was blocked on nl-wiki. What happens on nl-wiki generally should not impact on an editor's contributions on en-wiki, with the possible exception that known socks should be blocked whether or not they have been used. As to the main account, any action taken against that should solely be as a result of editing on en-wiki, and nowhere else. If the editor is not causing a problem on en-wiki, the fact that they are blocked elsewhere is immaterial. It has been the case in the past that editors blocked on en-wiki have worked elsewhere (simple, commons) and shown over a period of time that they have learnt from the blocks, such evidence being used to support an unblock request at a later date.
    If you have evidence that the editor in question is causing problems on en-wiki, then please show it. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure MoiraMoira was asking for a block or any form of action specifically, just giving context to this editors post. FWIW I agree, if there is no wrongdoing here (and the account is not globally banned) then there is no reason to take specific action. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I made an error

    Hello, my name is User:Presidentman. When I put the WikiBreak Enforcer in my script page, I made an error, putting a 5 in instead of a 3. - 74.171.71.173 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already fixed at ANI. TNXMan 12:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cecil Taylor Biography

    Hello....

    We are a board of administrators at the Cecil Taylor Art Foundation--We have tried to edit his biography and delete the stupid comments about his private life..

    Since when the sexual tendencies of a person became a deal on wikipedia...Please delete his personal life comments. its ludicrous , we will persist until we see a proper page which talks about who he really is and what is his personal life.

    Wikipedia should be ashamed to allow that kind of comments get public...particularly when we talk about a music legend.


    how many of your contributors ar gay or lesbians or whatever? why you don't display comments on them too?

    thanks

    representing Maestro Cecil Taylor

    Dr. Ana Isabel Ordonez www-ceciltaylor-art.com www.rubyflower-records.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdonezDr (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you email the open ticket request system or discuss this on the article's talk page. Continually attempting to change the article's text, without discussion, will probably only result in the page being protected from editing, likely in the version you object to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the section as it was a mess. I've left a note on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I get this right :)

    So, as a pretty new admin I've been relatively cautious over use of the tools... tonight I just deleted "Students_Health_Home" as a copyvio from http://shhnorthhooghly.blogspot.com/ The article had been prodded and AFD'd with the author (now blocked for these actions) removing all notices without discussion. Someone on the AFD pointed out that there was a copyvio issue so I G12 speedied the article, told the author and closed the AFD.

    My question is; is this an OK approach? Technically it is out of process, but it seemed the sensible, non drama thing to do :) My long term impression is that copyvio's like this are best just deleted without prejudice, but I would like to be sure before the problem comes up again :) --Errant (chat!) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion you did exactly what you should have done. In some cases, I feel that it's better to let an Afd run its course when it's already at Afd and is tagged with a speedy—especially when the AfD is already a few days in with multiple !votes. This is because you do not get the benefit of G4 if it's speedied (which is why your statement that the closing was "without prejudice" was superfluous by the way). But that consideration is only valid when there is not a compelling reason for immediate deletion, and there is such a compelling reason when articles are copyvios or are defamatory. I don't agree with you that it was out of process. It is actually a proper application of one process, that affected another process and it is also common practice. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes, that was pretty much my thinking too (COPYVIO over AFD) but it is always good to be sure. :) --Errant (chat!) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Ban discussion re. Sol Goldstone on ANI

    Pursuant to Alison's post on ANI regarding e-mail hacking, outing, and proxy-aided socking by Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs), I have proposed to ban Sol Goldstone from Wikipedia; see here for a direct link to the ban discussion, which is a sub-thread of Alison's post. --Dylan620 (t • c) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Capitalistmaniac

    Capitalistmaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote "Go ban me. I have proxies anyway. This is the reason I laugh at the donation ads." in this edit. I propose that we ban that user.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please delete

    File:Shakibkhan.gif, see pictures history and edit-war.--Musamies (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already deleted by Spartaz. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 07:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Enforced Wikibreak

    I accidentally set my enforced wikibreak too long (like above) and can you remove it? The page is here. Thanks. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=416561376"