Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spartaz (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 28 August 2010 (→‎Proposed editing restrictions on User:Wolfkeeper: closing with sanctions enacted). 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


    Proposed editing restrictions on User:Wolfkeeper

    The proposed sanctions are enacted Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
    BigBodBad (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

    The user has been generally disruptive (moreso recently) with respect to policies on articles about words (stridently pushing a very restrictive and not widely-held view with respect to the inclusion of words-as-articles) and feels they have "the right under WP:IAR to have and use socks", (see recent ANI where they defended themselves in the third person with an undisclosed sock) I proposed editing restrictions as follows:

    1. Wolfkeeper is indefinitely restricted from using undisclosed alternate accounts.
    2. Wolfkeeper is topic-banned for six months from any edits in the mainspace related to words-as-articles, broadly construed.
    3. Wolfkeeper is topic-banned for six months from any edits on policies and guidelines related to words-as-articles, broadly construed.
      Constructive talk page comments are permitted in respect to 2 & 3 above.
    • Support as proposer. –xenotalk 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternate account restriction, but not sure about mainspace restriction. Convince me. Convinced. Support all 3.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm, split mainspace from policy/guideline. Do you support the policy/guideline restriction? See [1] for an example of mainspace disruption related to their extreme view on articles-on-words, there are many examples like this which may be easily found in the contributions history of his two accounts. –xenotalk 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wolfkeeper has had difficulty in understanding what WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOTDICT actually mean, taking the fact that we have articles that define and then further expand upon the term in a manner that Wikidiction is not set out to do ( eg, Yankee, Truthiness, pussy). He repeatedly has challenged if WP really is a dictionary because we have these types of definitions. ((see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Draft RfC on words for a starting point on his vies). RFCs and other discussions have closed that WK's view is mistaken, that we still aren't a dictionary but we will have articles on terms and words with their definition as part of an encyclopedic coverage of that term as evidenced in the above examples. That's ok to disagree on, but then he has changes WP:NOT and WP:NOTDICT to basically claim that since we allow these articles, we must be a dictionary by default. He edit wars to keep these ideas on these pages (rarely hitting 3RR but effectively close to that). (see around May 10-14 on [2] or late March - Early April [3] . --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - all three - better than the alternative - (indefinite block) - Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both all 3 actions. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all proposed restrictions. This behavior has gone on far too long, and now it's escalated to deliberate disruption. —David Levy 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think he's on a runaway bullet train to bannedsville, but if there's some hope of progress away from that then I'm all for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all. With respect to the latter two, he seems to have become quite bitter over the subject, based on his comments here. Gaining some distance might help him gain some perspective, but if nothing else limiting his comments to "Constructive talk page comments" should help. Given his willingness to IAR on sock puppetry, I'm not entirely sure that his definition of "constructive" talk page comments related to this issue will accord with the community's, so I do worry that this may not resolve the situation. I presume the goal here to be avoiding a site ban and hope it will be successful. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed that is the goal, and I would suggest that (if this carries,) his block may be commuted in lieu of the restrictions. –xenotalk 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
      Or at least, the edit warring/disruptive editing block. The extra week for socking, I'd suggest leaving alone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree on that point. The 2-week block is well-deserved given the history, and the fact that the disruption has escalated lately suggests a break from Wikipedia is sorely needed in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, was probably a mistake on my part to bring it up here as it complicates this discussion. Can be discussed separately if Wolfkeeper initiates a third unblock request. Hope y'all don't mind if I shrink this. –xenotalk 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Suggestion to commute block withdrawn because user shows absolutely no understanding of why they have been blocked. –xenotalk 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all 3 The blatant "use socks to IAR" says so much. The lack of understanding in this whole episode says even more. I too agree he's on a runnaway train, not sure of the destination. I agree in principle with all previous support arguments, though I think Moonridden girl is overly optimistic in her hopes. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all per nom; having now read a couple of the discussions this user has been involved in regarding articles about words, I think these measures will be necessary (and hopefully successfully avoid the need for a ban). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Indeed, given that he apparently thinks it's quite okay to use socks to back yourself up in disputes I might have a look at some previous interactions I've had with him, one of which in particular was characterised by random support for his position from new users. An additional note: this is the first time I've come across this particular policy argument, and I happen to pretty much agree with Wolfkeeper's position, which makes it doubly annoying that it's now tainted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      There are a few other editors who somewhat agree with a few of Wolfkeeper's positions. Read through Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Draft RfC on words, and its talkpage, to get a general idea of the situation. This issue is still somewhat unresolved, despite Wolfkeeper's apparent departure. Everyone's input is welcome (and encouraged). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There were similar problems at WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the seemingly futile discussion with his sock at ANI, I completely support all three proposed restrictions. —DoRD (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Starblind. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all proposed restrictions. This is a very long time coming. Wolfkeeper's sustained low-intensity edit warring on word articles and his belligerent, personal comments are directly counterproductive to collaborative work, and the problem has been recurring for well over two years. Hopefully this will get him to reign it back in and further sanctions won't be necessary. However, like Moonriddengirl, I worry that his definition of "constructive talk page comments" won't accord with that of the community particularly well.--Cúchullain t/c 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I don't usually watch WP:AN; I asked to be notified if Wolfkeeper showed up here ... not because I wanted to "get" him, but because every difficult editor seems to either get worse or better with time, and his absence from WP:AN would have been good news. Looks like it went the other way. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all and an unconditional indef at the first breach. He's exhausted the patience of too many already. —fetch·comms 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Are we still going to allow Wolfkeeper to edit on said restricted articles', policies', and guidelines' talk pages as well as any AFDs concerning words-as-articles? My assumption is "yes", but I want to make sure there is mutual agreement on this. –MuZemike 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposal states that constructive talk-page edits will be allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm - I hadn't thought about AFDs. The restrictions as proposed would permit him to participate in, but not initiate, AFDs on words-as-articles. –xenotalk 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this something we want to address? Wolfkeeper has been just as acrimonious and disruptive at AfDs on word articles as anywhere (cf. [4] and [5], and these are cases where there are others who generally agree with his position).--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I drafted the restrictions to be somewhat lenient; but based on subsequent comments by Wolfkeeper that demonstrate an apparent inability to understand the issues at hand or accept any responsibility for his actions, a wider topic ban (including AfD discussions) may be appropriate. –xenotalk 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - my only encounters with Wolfkeeper have been at Homeopathy, where Wolfkeeper was at the centre of epic discussions and revert-fests over the meaning of single words (though I probably reverted at least one of wolfkeeper's edits; feel free to discount my !vote if you think that's a conflict of interest) bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer no use of alternate accounts in lieu of #1. Support 2 & 3 in entirety. Editor completely lacks a clue, and is now a significant disruption to the project. Modifying policies unlaterally to achieve one's own goals is a blatant disregard for the project as a whole. Clearly does not get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all three. Of course, he'll violate them or leave in a huff, but that's his choice. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as minimal, but I'd support a community ban (i.e., no editing of anything, ever). Words-as-articles is only of the bees in his bonnet. I am also concerned about his role in AFDs and the potential for endless disruption on talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - All restrictions, better than the indef I was leaning towards per his denial that it is wrong to sock to evade sanctions on his talk.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've run into this editor's pointy behavior regarding the "not a dictionary" debates, and was expecting some sanctions would be needed. I think this is a very fair response. -- Atama頭 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an FYI the editor claims to have scrambled their password, so if this proposal passes it will effectively be a community ban (as they will be indefinitely prohibited from operating undisclosed alternate accounts and unable to certifiably disclose any alternate accounts). –xenotalk 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he hasn't done the same with his known sock, I suppose that he might come back on that account to request an unblock. —DoRD (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's a bridge to cross when and if we come to it. I'm sure there's some way we could work on allowing him back if he were really going to avoid his problematic behavior.--Cúchullain t/c 22:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The restrictions apply to the PERSON behind the accounts, and it doesn't matter if he goes away for 6 years, or Wikipedia is sold to Martians - the person who is aka Wolfkeeper will be subject to the restrictions until they are removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, especially numbers 2 and 3. The user has been enforcing their own view about WP:NOTDICT as policy for as long as I can remember. It's time for a break if they can't accept consensus on the matter. Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This user first came to my attention at my RFA when I closed a controversial AFD and he started drama about me having the potential to abuse my tools. Since then when he threated to auto oppose my next RFA, I have seen him go downhill from there on out. Hopefully this will throw some sense their way and they will come back for the better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Watching some noticeboards has become very painful due to the persistent and exaggerated not dictionary pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Wolfkeeper seems to be acting in good faith, but simply doesn't get that things in the real world cannot all be classified into black or white. He has caused a large amount of disruption, and the proposed rules are just about the minimum for preventing that to continue. Hans Adler 08:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Wolfkeeper's actions have stemmed from sincere disagreement, but he's far exceeded the bounds of good faith. He's well aware that the community does not share his views, and his recent edits to policy/guideline pages (and announcement that he intended to deploy bots to create stub articles for all dictionary terms) constituted spiteful, point-making mockery of that fact. Meanwhile, he's been operating a sock puppet account and using it to deceptively back himself (clearly a bad-faith act). —David Levy 12:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #2 & #3. #1 (note WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY) would seem to apply to everyone. Support that, too... Doc9871 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that users are permitted to use undisclosed sock accounts under certain circumstances (for example, if it is necessary to hide your identity because of the risk of personal endangerment). Wolfkeeper would be restricted from using undisclosed socks for any reason. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An editor facing "personal endangerment" would hopefully "consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny." "Privacy" socks... (shiver) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Just caught up on the background on this editor. All three sanctions seems reasonable in the circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There is no 'right' under IAR to disruptively use socks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    E. Normus Johnson

    Could someone move User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/E. Normus Johnson back into the main space, restore his page history from the deleted version, and add an appropriate T:AH to his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. There was no deleted history of the article to merge, and you can put the talk page notices that you desire in directly. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant (Beta Testing)

    Hi all,

    I've created a Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant tool. (http://toolserver.org/~jylee/w2wcda/) It is 90% functional, there are some minor tweaks that require fixing (like the next and previous links). This tool is to provide a split screen interface for administrators to compare the two images side-by-side, one on the English Wikipedia and the Commons version of the same image. Please give me feedback on my talk page.

    Thanks! --AllyUnion (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool. I'm trying it out now; that backlog is ghastly. —fetch·comms 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone move this page?

    I need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yor%C3%B9b%C3%A1land moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorubaland and the previous page deleted. Thank you! -- Brout8 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the best place is requested moves, we might as well look after it here ... why not simply change the redirect of the current Yorubaland to the new stub that you have created (although, it's not much of a stub anymore)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've done. —fetch·comms 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Brout8 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm apparently more brilliant than bold today :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright concerns versus BLP concerns

    We have a talk page banner that is used to indicate when an external source has copied from Wikipedia, see the top of Talk:Maze Prison escape to see it in use.

    Now this generally seems to be used for random websites of unknown authorship that have copied from Wikipedia, but right now I find myself in a somewhat different position. Without giving exact details for obvious reasons a high-profile lawyer has published his memoirs and there's substantial copying and plagiarism from an article here, not the article about the lawyer for the record. So by adding that banner, and therefore accusing a named person of copyright/plagiarism issues, would I be breaking BLP? Thanks. 2 lines of K303 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The template's purpose seems to be more to notify users of the simple fact that an external source has copied Wikipedia (so users don't think we copied them and tag our article as copyvio). It doesn't seem to accuse the external source of inappropriate use, which is (presumably) left as an exercise for the reader. –xenotalk 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If content from Wikipedia is used verbatim, there are requirements for attribution in the CC-BY-SA and GDFL that may need to be satisfied. But that's not a template issue. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that's a separate issue entirely. –xenotalk 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The template implies copyright violation; it's called {{backwardscopyvio}}. It's not meant to be substituted, but when it is, the implication is lost. When it's not, it's there in the code, as in the bottom template headers here. I don't think it's a major BLP issue, but we could always consider creating {{backwardscopy}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. What about renaming it to "article reused" or something? –xenotalk 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself am partial to {{backwardscopy}} just because it's closer to the template I've been using for so long. :D It'll be easier to remember. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's already the {{Notacopyvio}} redirect. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we use it, does it still show backwardscopyvio in the code, o person who knows such things? :)I tested myself; that would seem to resolve the issue, as the code shows {{Notacopyvio}}. Of course, it is a bit more positive in asserting that there is no copyvio when there may well be, if the external source doesn't attribute.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Backwardscopy was my first thought and seems fine but I was trying to get more descriptive =]. –xenotalk 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Incomplete XfD's

    Could an admin please go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Old deletion discussions and process them? Most of these have closure results that are not delete or keep (no consensus, merge, etc). — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2007?!?!?....oops ;-) Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's really that old, the oldest dates back to May 2010. The oldest are really just maintenance cats. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems mostly done, except for the galleries that want moving to Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The flags galleries have already been moved and can be deleted. See my previous post here.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing an RfC

    An RfC was conducted over the past month at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC on date format for GG bios. Now that the requisite 30 days has expired and participation has dissipated, I wonder if an uninvolved admin could review the discussion and polls and close the RfC with a concluding note of it's ultimate result. The RfC is related to a wide-ranging dispute that needs closure. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=381457750"