Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive113

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


New users impersonating Rokus01[edit]

Resolved: Since these are stated to be impersonators not doppelgangers I have blocked all. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rokus01, it seems there have been new users creation that impersonating your user name and they only edited once of an unsourced fact about the Netherlands. I guess from your user page that you're a Dutch. Here are the new users and you can check their contributions:

If they are in fact a vandal and you know who (s)he is, then perhaps you can report them at WP:ANI. Dekisugi (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is a vandal and a sockpuppet of someone that somehow must have a record of opposing my edits. Other sockpuppets may have been created previously just for this same purpose, like Schonken (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). If this has any relation: to this sockpuppet I might have a clue since he performed edits like this: [1], that after being addressed from my side, was answered "(AFG has nothing tro do with it)" and restored by User:Paul Barlow : [2]. The strange thing about this action was it was withdrawn shortly after: [3]. Maybe because he discovered he was not logged on as Schonken? The last edit of Schonken was ten days before I denounced him as a sockpuppet, so "maybe" the person discovered too late this puppet account was invalid? Just speculation, because my opinion was asked for explicitly and I am not an administrator that can check accounts or ip-numbers. The last action of sockpuppet "RokusXX" accounts was followed by this comment of, again, P.M.: [4] Why he should comment anything on what is none of his concern? In other instances I silently suspected him of alliance or aspirations to WP cabalgroups and crypto-fascist ideologies, although before I never esteemed this urgent enough to dedicate much of my time. I have strong indications he fears my intervention or even anticipated my intervention by already putting the ideological suspections on me. A strategic move that lately might have been taken over by a possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann, according to some loose accusations of some of his most vocal protegés and corresponding to the last incident I recently opened because of such an unwarranted accusal by him directly. Sorry for brainstorming in public, I just want to comply to the explicit request for giving information in order this abuse can be tackled in a proper way by the proper people. To be sure: I am not interested in Atlantis at all, and I am not aware of any sourcable claims of Atlantis being located in the Netherlands. Rokus01 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I've really heard it all. Wow. "possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann". cryptofascist cabals at that. Perhaps do some more brainstorming in private first, yes? I have no idea who is behind these RokusXX edits, but I must say they are doing a rather funny impression of the general gist of the original Rokus :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not bothered. Just curious how far opponents would go when they run out of arguments. By the way, do I sense here in you some kind of intermediate state of an evolving "faculty" towards humor? Rokus01 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
are you implying that your "crypto-pov-pushing" was of a humorous nature all along? I must admit I hadn't spotted that, but the case is quite compelling in hindsight. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has Rokus gone completely bonkers? I added the comment to the Rokus04 page because Olmec happens to be on my watchlist, so it was "my concern" that someone was vandalising the page to make a point. I reverted Rokus's removal of the tag on the Beaker culture page because I thought it had been placed there by an uninvolved editor reacting to the content, and that Rokus was simply attempting to conceal evidence of his nationalistic editing. Hence my objection to Rokus' claim that it should be removed because of AGF. AGF would have nothing to do with it if the tag had been added honestly. In fact the removal would be a breach of AGF, not the addition of the tag. Hence my comment. When I discovered that the editor had apparently just tagged several Rokus-influenced pages, I removed it. As for cabals promoting "crypto-fascism", that's just laughable. BTW, I have never edited as anyone other than myself. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I might add that the "ideological suspections" of Rokus arise from his editing and have been made by many separate editors. Oh sorry. It's really one big crypto-fascist cabal. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of non-free images used outside of mainspace[edit]

I've used a script (which I stole from eagle_101) to generate User:ST47/NFI, a list of all uses of non-free images outside of mainspace. Please peruse and remove offending images, I'll regenerate it weekly. :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WP:SPEEDY that covers such deletions? -- Jreferee t/c 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of them do have legit FURs and are used in the mainspace. They're just also used in userspace. I'd be curious if there's a template to put on the talk page after they get removed from the userpage. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Removal_of_fair_use_images#Fair_use_images_on_userpages explains that user page non free images are copyvios. Here is an example of a deletion and here is what the deletor posted on the user talk page. This seems like something a Bot could do. Any bot developers interested? -- Jreferee t/c 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot can do this I think, perhaps also one of the MiszaBots. I'm pretty sure deleting the images from the page is not the way to do it though, you should add a : (semicolon) symbol to unlink them. Be warned though on the occasions I have done this it has never been well greeted. User talk:Jackaranga#Userpage for an example. Jackaranga (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. It is the image, not the text string, that is the offending material. Adding a : (semicolon) symbol to unlink the image but leave the text string is the correct amount of action. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Next time you run the script you should probably exclude the Portal namespace, since that's for all intents and purposes just a special part of the mainspace. --bainer (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Although there are those (e.g., me) who advocate for our permitting fair use in portal space under the same criteria we apply to mainspace, the community has never sanctioned such use (the most recent broad discussion of which I'm aware took place in October 2006, and the underlying proposal was ultimately tagged as {{historical}}, having never commanded a consensus; I'm not at all sure that it would now, especially in view of the community's broad embrace of the Foundation's licensing policy). (That is not, of course, to suggest that portal pages ought not to be excluded from the script—indeed, I cannot imagine that we should be served particularly well by editors' undertaking to remove fair-use media from portal space—but only to clarify [that which I understand to be] current policy). Joe 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How was this list generated? I'm concerned at the fact that Category:CopyrightByWikimedia was apparently included, because (A) this category's status is unresolved at this point (and, in particular, it contains many prominent images intended for userspace and project-space, including the admin mop) and (B) It is not a subcategory of Category:All non-free media, which led me to my question about your methods. Now, the problem presented by this category should clearly be discussed, but treating it like it's already been settled is a mistake. —Random832 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


You may want to check that script out. I did not upload Image:Air_Canada_Logo.svg or a boatload of others (search for spryde on the NFI page) yet it marks me as such. I believe it is taking the last user who edited the image. I know it isn't really important who uploaded what in this context but it may in future uses of the script. Also, what is the policy of doing an article rewrite in userspace? Can we have NF images there while the rewrite is occuring? spryde | talk 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you cannot dispaly NFC in userspace. you can either use the : to link to it or use a placeholder image. βcommand 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not-quite-closed AfD[edit]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial county of Durham was closed by User:East718, with "delete" as the outcome. However, there were four articles co-nominated, and only Ceremonial county of Durham was deleted. As all "votes" were delete all or keep all, this seems to be an oversight. I've mentioned this on East718's talk page, but thought I'd bring it up here as well. --RFBailey (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 03:23, November 27, 2007
Usually, it is more prudent to just leave a note on the admin's talk page. —Kurykh 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the right thing was done here as I went offline. east.718 at 03:55, November 27, 2007
Another option is tagging the articles with {{db-xfd}} for the next janitor.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to recuse myself from this case soon, could some other admin please keep an eye out for this guy?[edit]

Gangeticus (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is posting unverified, possibly libelous attacks on Malaysian universities. He called me a racist and an idiot here, which means that there might be a conflict of interest problem if I block him or take any other kind of action for disruptive behaviour. Could someone else take up this case? Borisblue (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message to the user. Since the user does not appear to be actively editing right this second, I don't think a retroactive block would be appropriate, and I'm not sure the user has been sufficiently warned or made aware of our policies. I'll see how the user responds to my message, and if any disruptive edits continue. Please post here again (or even contact me personally if necessary) if the user continues being uncivil or other forms of disruptive editing.-Andrew c [talk] 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew here: there has been a lack of serious education for this user regarding our relevant policies and guidelines, with the exception of a generic welcome template which one could not seriously claim to be substantially and effectively educating. If the abusive behaviour continues after the comment on his/her user talk page, then further measures may have to be looked at, particularly with regards to blocking to prevent further disruption. However, in the meanwhile a policy of fence-sitting is the most effective and fair course of action we can take for the moment. Anthøny 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped him a note about civility (specifically WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've followed up with this [5] warning. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
His response was less than gracious to Bearian's note, so I left him a reminder about verifiability and an offer of help if he needs it. , Dlohcierekim 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Review of Checkuser Required[edit]

This checkuser case needs administrator assistance (particularly in the blocking area). --EoL talk 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should note that they cannot use "checkuserblock" as a reason for a block unless they are explicitly instructed to do so, which is not what has happened in this case. If a checkuser wants an IP checkuserblocked, they will likely do it themselves. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe just a sockpuppet block, then? --EoL talk 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite given to the sock, only 24 hours for the main because I am willing to AGF here, and the edit warring was with someone who was also in the wrong with regard to the prod process. I assume the autoblocks will get the IP. GRBerry 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New Page Patrol[edit]

I'm logging off - but there are some pages that need that vital tick if there are any persons who are wondering what they might do for the next half hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyalomma marginatum.jpg
OK. (SEWilco (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
One of those transatlantic dissonances that doesn't come up that much: Brits tick boxes, Americans check them. On the other hand, the US has a serious Lyme disease problem, the UK not at all. . . Chick Bowen 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

issues with admin[edit]

difficulties with User:CJCurrie, blanket reverts, POV and little response on talk.

most recent issue: [6] - 05:55, 27 November.

  • edit marked as minor.
  • ignored talk section (linked with the edit).
  • reference removal and POV text which does not comply with the refs.

in a past dispute, CJCurrie already received a note by User:Nihiltres to use the undo button rather than tag reverts as minor; and to explain the reasons on talk rather than repeatedly revert without discussion. [7]

fairly recently, there was another case of a double mass revert without discussion [8][9].

the mass reverts are many times accompanied by removal of sources (see above diffs) and i'm finding the situation disruptive.

would appreciate some thoughts from the community regarding the situation. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle breaking articles[edit]

I'm not familiar with the Twinkle user script, but it appears to have a function where it removes deleted images from articles. It has a bug (reported a month ago as TW-B-0051) which causes it to repeatedly comment out the same image: see [10] for an example of this. Since HTML comments don't nest, this results in "-->" being scattered throughout articles.

I'd like to request that anyone using Twinkle not use this functionality: ImageRemovalBot is just as capable of removing deleted images from articles, and it does not suffer from this bug. --Carnildo (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP[edit]

Could one or more admins head over to WP:SSP? There's a bit of a backlog developing there. --RFBailey (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a backlog :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a backlog - the bot's just not archiving. All the requests there, AFAICT, are actioned. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there are four open cases (of varying degrees of complication) that don't appear to have been "actioned" at all. --RFBailey (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I patrol this regularly. A few weeks ago it was 41 cases, this weekend it had ZERO. 4-5 cases is only about a day's worth of reporting. Thanks for the concern, but this is not really a backlog. RlevseTalk 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough: maybe "backlog" was the wrong choice of words, but all the same there were cases there that needed to be looked at. After posting the first case there while the list was empty, I had anticipated a faster response, that's all. Don't worry about it! --RFBailey (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

False Block[edit]

09:43, 5 November 2007 Orderinchaos (Talk | contribs) blocked "DPCU (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (old block log - link confirmed by checkuser. see also DXRAW.) Where is this checkuser case? DPCU (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above: shortly after the DPCU account was created, Orderinchaos gave him a one second block in order to record in his block log the assertion that checkuser had shown DPCU to be a returning user ExtraDry, who was in turn shown by checkuser to be a returning user DXRAW. As far as I know, DPCU has not yet explicitly denied this, but objects to it having been inserted into his block log without the evidence having been made available to him. Hesperian 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Show me the case, It is not listed under any of the above mentioned usernames. DPCU (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It was done privately. Sarah 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you assert that there has been a violation of the CheckUser policy? Hesperian 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh bother. Best practice, if a check has been requested privately, is to note the name of the checkuser in the block summary, to avoid such complaints. Any user who adopts a new account to avoid scrutiny or a bad reputation from an old account can be so tagged, although I personally would give the person a chance to see if he has improved his behavior. Thatcher131 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure it was Dmcdevit who checked it (I am 4,500km from my home computer at present so can't check directly until Sunday). It was an unusual situation in that we are not looking at a sockpuppet of a blocked user, more one who gets into trouble repeatedly through disruptive behaviour then dumps the old name and adopts a new name to avoid scrutiny - so I did not block the user, but for scrutiny reasons it was important for those assessing this user's actions to be aware of the link. Orderinchaos 07:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta[edit]

A few of you will be familiar with the history of Swalwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a hamlet where Wikipedia Review has decided one of their pet targets lives. This article has been recreated many times and then used to harass various individuals (for example linking it from their user page). This time a slightly different approach has been taken; the article was not deleted, even though it is plainly deliberate trolling ( as an example) but it has been protected, along with its talk page. I have left a note asking for edit protected requests to be brought here. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The version that I restored was not created by the WR lunatics, but by an established editor with 24K+ edits who is active in the area. I was reluctant to bring this to public light because of its sentitive nature, but since the cat's out of the bag I welcome review and comments. east.718 at 11:23, November 24, 2007
Yes, I noticed that's what you did. It needs to be said because the talk page is protected through two protected transclusions and a protection, which might cause confusion. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The assumption on your part that any creation of an article on a particular hamlet is "plainly deliberate trolling" is an assumption of bad faith on your part, and untrue in this case given that the current version was actually created by a legitimate editor unaffiliated with the "attack sites". Since Wikipedia normally aims to have articles on every populated place no matter how small, the history of knee-jerk deletions of this one as "trolling" is the sort of thing outside media might be interested in when they're looking for examples of WikiAdmin pettiness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...except that every single creation except for the last was trolling. Somehow, I don't think articles created by accounts impersonating the editor in question or containing "LOOOOOOOOL <redacted>! <redacted> LIVES THERE!!!!!" are good-faith contributions. east.718 at 16:46, November 24, 2007
That and the thread on WR which outright admits to it, yes. And Dan, the current version isn't a troll becuse it's not the last one that was created, the history was reviewed and a veriosn found - the ony version as far as I can tell - that was not actually trolling. The creator of yesterday is blocked as a sleeper sock, his version is gone. Perhaps we should invite Dan to quietly remove that comment and these replies, to save his embarrassment. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dan, could you please, please, please cut it with the histrionics, and actually educate yourself on the issues before you go on one of your rants? It would make the editing atmosphere so much more pleasant. --Iamunknown 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly well educated, thank you. And all that that WR thread admitted to was tweaking the noses of the oversensitive admins by writing a perfectly reasonable page about that locality and having it predictably deleted as "trolling"... so the admin deleting it was actually feeding the troll in this case, since that's exactly the action they were trying to provoke. And WR actually has a point when they say that this sort of knee-jerk deletion (even in the absence of any direct evidence that it is actually written by a troll, or any actual problem with the content) shows a silly tendency to put petty grudges over improving the encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not the whole story is it, Dan? The list of blocked usernames of past creators, for example, which features variants on the supposed RWI and Wikipedia usernames of some of those "oversensitive admins", means that is not quite as hilarious as perhaps you think. Maybe you've mistaken us for a site where it's fine to do these things "for the lulz"? It's not. Seriously, it's not. I know it's a kind of game for your mates over at WR to try and get this laughable theory into Wikipedia, and I'm sure they either know it's false or don't care whether it's true or not, but actually it does matter because someone is being harassed and this "tweaking the nose" of "oversensitive admins" is a part of that harassment. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I would ask you to consider posting in the manner of your 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post rather than in the manner of your 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post, and to continue engaging in discussion (i.e. reply, as opposed to hit and run) ... its amazing what can be done, and how much more productive discussion can be, when you cut the histrionics, and actually engage in discussion. --Iamunknown 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious how Dan claims to know so much about this page, if the edits are deleted? When I first glanced at the deleted edits, I was wondering why the page was deleted, as it seemed perfectly harmless. But then I took a second look, and the accounts involved usually went on trolling sprees or otherwise showed their "true colors" within a few minutes/hours of creating the page. When I block a throwaway, harassment account, it strikes me as a waste of time to go checking their two contribs for usefulness, just revert/block/ignore unless something else comes to light. The page itself is harmless, I'd say, but some of the people (previously) editing it, the usernames and behaviors those people opt for, are nevertheless an important context. Who cares what WR says, here? Just deal with it as we normally would. "Special treatment," good or bad, isn't a territory I'd like to wander into. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the first few incarnations of the page were fairly blatant trolling; while the content of each was generally a benign stub, I can understand the desire to delete them given that the offensive usernames would be forever interred in the page history otherwise. Deleting the version by an established contributor on Alberta-related topics was a bit hasty, but thankfully this reasonable version is now restored, and we no longer have a hole in our coverage. Further protection seems fine, since it's obviously a troll magnet, and since it's a sleepy little hamlet with little to say on it, it seems reasonable to ask for an editprotected request. --krimpet 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where one would ask, given that the talk page is protected too, but you're probably about right otherwise. Nowadays, with the Durova scandal in full drama, all of the "innocent" mistakes in the course of pursuing the War on Terror Trolls are being scrutinized to an extent not seen before. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Bit of catch-22, unfortunately -- protect the article, disruption shifts to the talk page and renders the effort moot; protect the talk page, and where can we talk? Appreciate the insights, both of you. Hopefully we can unprotect the talk page, at least, eventually? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dan, there's a message there that says to post here. If someone were to deface the talk page for the hamlet with "OMGWTFBBQ SHE LIVES THERE!!!!!" it would be dangerous; if somebody were to do it here it wouldn't last five minutes. At the same time, legitimate edits have a well-trafficked venue to be requested in. east.718 at 05:59, November 25, 2007

I have restored the legitimate edits to Talk:Swalwell, Alberta and readded the banner in those edits. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, and unprotection would cause many headaches for the oversighters. Graham87 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing is inherently notable, but consensus is that real places get a directory entry regardless. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Semantics, really. I've yet to see an article on a settlement deleted for failing to assert notability. Ther is more than enough precedent to state that the very existence of any such settlement is a claim of notability. i.e.: inherent. Consensus could change, of course, but the liklihood of it happening in these cases is remote. Resolute 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a few lines should be added to the talk page to explain why the article has been protected. Those unfamiliar with the situation who in good faith want to add material to move it beyond stub territory should be given some context as to why they can't unless they're admins. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid feeding the trolls and also consider the sensitive nature of this issue. east.718 at 02:49, November 26, 2007
We could simply keep it protected, it's a straightforward 'keep' if it weren't for the unencyclopedic personal issues. Just protect or semi-protect, and keep it that way, maybe?Merkinsmum 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I reopened the AFD as it had been invalidly closed, though I expect it to result in a keep closure anyhow. Given how WR likes to beat dead horses beyond all recognition, the article would need to be protected for quite some time. It would probably be better just to leave a protected redirect somewhere given the lack of source material that isn't just one word on a short list. --Coredesat 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick suggestion: close the afd (we know what the outcome will be), semi-protect it, use it as a honey pot and move on. spryde | talk 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Close the AfD, yes. Use as honey pot, no. The accounts were probably created specifically for this page (i.e. having it uneditable means no one will be creating accounts to mess with it). John Reaves 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question. It isn't explained here why creation of this article is considered trolling if it has benign content? What is it about this geographic location that is so sensitive? Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The first post in this thread makes it clear. Rockpocket 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the trolling and fanning the flames at the RFAR[edit]

Now I admit that Durova and I haven't always gotten along. But I see that Durova has become an easy target for some who do not seem to have the project's best interest at heart. I've noticed a very familiar and tiresome pattern of attacks going on at the RFAR pages now that suggest to me other motives; trolling and settling old scores to start with. Not everybody who opposed Durova was a troll, but there are certainly trolls who are there now. For example: [11] I'm surprise this went unreverted. Also these: [12][13][14][15] [16][17][18][19][20][21] If there's one place where the signal-to-noise ratio should be the lowest, it's there. Clearly some policing needs to be done of those pages for those whose only interest is in creating or adding to drama by fanning the flames. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except every single example of trolling that you've provided is by the same person. That hardly indicates a pattern. -Amarkov moo! 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Its up to the arbcom clerks. Contact the one dealing with this case. Simply removing posts from arbcom pages exacerbates matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridae (talkcontribs) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the opinion of two who I seem to remember having a personal ax to grind with Durova. Could that be influencing your opinions here? And for the record the community can and has policed RFAR pages before. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. I can't speak for Viridae, but I actually liked Durova before this. You appear to be confusing "having a personal axe to grind" with something else. Even if we somehow conluded that I have this nonexistent axe, I fail to see how this changes the clear fact that you've only provided evidence of one troll. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Lack of faith FM. If you want to avoid a controversy, contact the clerk. They will remove it if they see fit. Someone removing another persons evidence section or comments at arbcom will usually piss people off, and this is a high profile case. Do it by the book and noone will say anything about it. ViridaeTalk 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Felonius Monk, the last diff you've included is actually Durova's post. It appears that most of those posts were present in the case at the time the arbitrators and clerk were all very active on the pages; they would have been aware of them, and no doubt have assigned them their due weight in the decision. I have to admit I am feeling a little uncomfortable at the comments that are being added at this late stage, when most proposed decisions have met quorum. Risker (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a way of dealing with trolling anywhere. See what you think:

  • Remove the comment
  • Leave a WP:AGF note on the user's talk explaining that you did this because it appeared inflammatory, which was surely not what they intended, and invite them to restate their comment in rather less problematic terms.
  • If they reinsert it verbatim, then you know it's deliberate trolling - we know how to handle users who are deliberately inflaming a dispute.
  • If they rephrase it, life is good.

How about that? Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That works if the person removing the trolling agrees with the point being made, otherwise it looks like censorship and becomes a source of drama all by itself. So find someone who agrees with the point but not the way the point was phrased and they can replace the point with their own phrasing of it. I've reduced drama by simply minimally modifying another's post to made it less inflammatory. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Th whole point of an AGF notice and the comment about restating it in neutral terms is precisely that it is not censorship. One could refactor the comment, but that would risk adding an editorial bias. I think we should be much less reluctant to kick back inflammatory comments and ask the person to rephrase them. As a serial poster of hasty and sometimes ill-judged comments, I would not have a problem with this, provided it were stated in terms that do not assume bad faith. Some comments can be misinterpreted, and some look much less good in black and white than they sound in our heads. I think it's worth a try, anyway, but it won't work unless a decent sized group of people adopt the idea. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, so the comments should have been reverted and the IPs blocked. This particular ban is not in dispute and was confirmed by FloNight. Thatcher131 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Confirmed by whom? We think not Thatcher131. The blocks were simply to preserve a pattern of deceit and corruption.

Take a look at the Songgarden edits for a clue? I work for him. He is no fool. Anyone that keeps blocking based on the Durova type sleuthing, might be wise to understand that she ended up right where she was headed. From Toronto, I say thank you. (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A change for the better, please[edit]

It would be a very healthy change if people who hold controversial opinions legitimately became more proactive about addressing the problem of dubious voices on their own side of the fence. Also about asking people who agree with them to refactor incivility. It carries inherent clout to step forward that way. And when any of us consistently fails to do so, it eventually looks like our standards are low - that we accept or perhaps even invite unfair practices if that gets us the upper hand. That's poisonous. Let's each uphold a higher standard. DurovaCharge! 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, well put, except, please admit that Flonight was not a checkuser when you claim she checked on me.

The evidence clearly shows that Flonight received those tools after you blocked. I am not "Amorrow" and I am not a sock of "Once and Forever." It really does not matter, because I do not see that Once and Forever did anything to allow JzG to block him/her either. Come clean now that you can, please? Truly yours, Songgarden from a neutral IP away from my Lake Como location (I do not need to destroy my friends on the lake.......George would not like that. (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Durova as a sock of Amorrow. The reason was changed to sock of Once and Forever by FloNight. Although FloNight did not have checkuser access at that time, she is a member of the Arbitration committee and has access to privileged communication between checkusers, or could have contacted a checkuser privately. I myself have placed "Checkuser" blocks, although I usually list the name of the checkuser whom I contacted. You are essentially accusing FloNight of lying, which I do not accept. For the present, Songgarden is banned and his/her contributions may be reverted and his/her IPs may be blocked. Songgarden may appeal by sending email directly to the Arbitration Committee. Thatcher131 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon me Thatcher131, but that statement ^ sounds extremely close to the excuses that were entered by Durova prior to her

engagement with Arbcom. I suspect and rightly assume you do not want to justify her behavior any more than you want to excuse the behavior that forced the Arbcom. event. Please reconsider sending an innocent editor to Arbcom. when, in fact, the block was done for no earthly good or justifiable reason. Please admit that you were wrong in making the comment about Flonight. Durova lied about Flonight. You do not want to follow in her path, correct? Truly yours, a friend of the project...... No TOR.... (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone checking these IPs for open proxies?—Random832 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we're treating them all as such. The fact that Songgarden has used at least five ISPs in a four hour span as seen here is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone revert ban evasion anymore? DurovaCharge! 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I try not to mess about on these particular pages, but I support the sentiments you have expressed in the first post of this thread, Durova. Reminding people one agrees with to make their points with tact rather than sledgehammers is highly appropriate in a lot of situations. Risker (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's trolling?[edit]

I'm a bit curious as to FeloniousMonk's criteria for determining what is trolling? Apparently these are not [22], [23], [24], [25], etc, etc, but anything made by ips that you disagree with is automatically "trolling"? Perhaps it would be easier to put a "no ips" sign at the arbitration pages (not that I would necessarily disagree)..... (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DOLTS and legal threats[edit]

In response to an incident the other day of libels being reinserted and the victim being blocked by overzealous Wikipedians,[26] I've written a new essay Wikipedia:Don't Overlook Legal Threats (WP:DOLT). Comments and improvements are welcome - indeed I think this could be a guideline/policy unless there's a reason I've missed.--Docg 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal thing might have a point, but it is way, way too personally invective against the 'fictitious' editor you've created as a strawman, and the recent events that pissed you off. You're off on an emotional tangent because it angered you so much, and it's way too emotional to be a guideline. It's not an essay, really, it's a rant. I understand where you're coming from, and the legal issues should be mentioned as part of the Legal Threats page, but I'm afraid you need to revisit this in a month instead and tone it down from a distance. --Thespian (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was rather good, especially the bit about checking facts before making assumptions - something that is all too rarely done. DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I, too, thought it was pretty good. Recent events, which I only caught the tail end of, leads me to think that we could use a guideline. El_C 12:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Good one, Doc. This happens often enough that it's well worth pointing out. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It kind of ties in with assuming good faith (in your example, the young vandal fighter failed to do so) - not sure if it ought to be a policy, but it's a pertinent and useful essay. Neil  12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, leave it as an essay. But perhaps some folk could frame some policy statement additions on WP:NLT and WP:AGF to reflect it (perhaps linking to it). As for a "rant" I don't think so, but I think it is useful to illustrate the point with a satirical fictitious example - yet we all know this is not so far from what regularly happens.--Docg 12:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, except that the 'fictitious' editor that this is setting up is, action for action (motive I can't help with), exactly like an existing editor who you called, I believe, an idiot, 2 days ago, for doing just these things. This is why I think you really need to take some time on this one; and that's why, having read what provoked this, I think you have a germane idea, but *this* is a rant. --Thespian (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We could perhaps make it a little more neutral by removing the fictitious references to the vandal fighter's age (you don't have to be 17 to be a "dolt") and hometown (you don't have to be American, either). Neil  13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't look at any of the personal information of the parties involved the other day - so any similarity to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental. Happy for the exact age and location to be removed - but the point of naming the participants was to remind people that real people are involved here. Not Vandal fighter vs vandal, but Bob vs Colin - it helps us to remember that real people get hurt, and Colins wouldn't otherwise wish to hurt Bobs. We need to take the roleplay out of this and stay human.--Docg 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(Any more discussion on the language might be better on the talk page of the essay)--Docg 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If it were action-for-action accurate to the events of the other day, the young vandal fighter would then immediately followup his ANI post with a BLPN post and then an effort to investigate what was going on (because he doesn't think it smart that one editor take it completely upon himself to respond to a legal threat). He would then find that the original article had been deleted making it impossible for him to figure out what happened and if he missed something or made some kind of mistake. And then a few administrators would come along to sneer at and otherwise insult the vandal fighter, including creating a new essay with an invective name.
Doc, I sincerely urge and request that you take a few steps back, examine what actually happened a few days ago, and assume good faith. You've very much misunderstood what happened and why and I would very much appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, I would appreciate someone pointing out what I seemed to have missed in that original article as those involved have only seen fit to belittle me and I don't know why. I don't think it's appropriate to continue to belittle me (or anyone else) for one mistake, particularly by making a monument in the form of an essay with a clearly-insulting name. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember something like this used to explicitly be part of the BLP and/or COI policy. When did that change?—Random832 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take a similar view-point to Doc G., above. There is a very steamroller-ish point of view, where legal threats by often inexperienced or irate users are squashed down and repressed with lengthy blocks. Don't get me wrong, I believe legal threats are detrimental to the atmosphere we require in a productive editing atmosphere. However, a policy of education towards new users is the best course of action for us to take towards those who do not offend seriously, who have not been previously directed to our legal threats policy, and who are not aware of the (justifiable) intolerance we have towards such actions. Anthøny 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
An individual who has been libelled in a wikipedia article has no interest in being "educated", or being "directed" to our policies. And any "justified intolerance" was have of their threats is more than outweighed by the intolerable and unjustified fact that our article is libelling them. It needs to be understood, that libelled people don't want to know or understand our rules, they don't want to be wikipedians, they simply want to communicate their problem with the article, and assume that people involved in a project committed to truth and neutrality will want to jump to help them. That's what needs to be understood here.--Docg 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fact? oh dear.Geni 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be a better to just make it easier to report these sort of problems? A simple button somewhere prominent to get help. I remember when I arrived here (and quickly got in a dispute), I was looking everywhere for some help, and the help pages are pretty unhelpful. I believe I somehow wound up on the Association of Members' Advocates page, which is gone now. If BD hadn't been so helpful and understanding, I would not be here now. So the user who helped me was the one I had a dispute with. Even after that there are places where I could have been template warned, but I got helpful explanations instead. Wikipedia is one of the least user (editor) friendly sites I have ever seen. You need to find a mentor to teach you how to navigate the maze of acronyms and rules, and if you don't... That was my experience anyway. Prodego talk 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WPCITE Beta Test[edit]

We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. This is a beta test version that works in Firefox 2. It will be modified later today to also work in Firefox 3. If any developers would like to join the project, please visit the WPCITE project page at Mozdev and add your name to the mailing list. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 14:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just tried this and it looks great. BencherliteTalk 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive page protection length[edit]

I don't know if this helps at all, but I just did some research on semi-protected articles and thought I'd post the results. There are currently about 1200 pages in Category:Semi-protected. Of those, 26 were protected in 2006. Another 180 were protected in the first half of this year.

The full list I had SatyrBot pull together can be reviewed at User:SatyrBot/Semiprotection.

My guess is, from reading WP:PPOL, that we have a group of pages (mostly templates, legal info, etc) that are *fully* protected, and a group of pages (articles, mostly) that are *semi* protected. The act of semi-protecting a page sometimes involves a time-limit, but sometimes doesn't - the policy mentions indefinite and temporary, neither of which are very specific :) One would expect George W. Bush to be semi-protected for at least the next year and a bit. But Cool probably doesn't need a time-limit. So unless a) the protector remembers to remove the protection or b) someone requests unprotection, a semi-protected page *could* stay that way indefinitely, and there's no way to indicate that the protection is supposed to be indefinite, or why it's that way, or if there's a time limit involved, or anything - simply that the page is semi-protected.

Again, I don't know if this helps anyone in any way. And I don't know if the information is useful at all, but I found it interesting :) I'm not going to watchlist this page, so I won't see any responses here. I will be posting this on the protection policy talk page, and will watch that one. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well some of them are obviously vandal magnets (Fag, Faggot, Asshole, George Bush). Others have SPE (Single Purpose Editors) who have repeatedly shown malice towards the article and more importantly, do not play well with others here (USAA, Merkey). Finally, we have the spam pots (Six Sigma), Internet Meme of the week (Chuck Norris Facts), celebs (Britney, Ne-yo, Fiddy Cent...), and controversial topics (Jew Watch, Isreal, Ann Coulter, etc). spryde | talk 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading what I just wrote, nothing is implied; however some may find my groupings funny. spryde | talk 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the "(Fag, Faggot, Asshole, George Bush)". It reminds me of a joke they'd use in South Park. нмŵוτнτ 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The underlying problem here is the lack of any semi-solid clarification on lengths of Administrator's actions. The Blocking Policy now has no advice to sysops on approximate block lengths, and to my knowledge the protection policy has never had such advice. We need to look at the insertion of such advised lengths (although obviously they are unusually difficult to define, being dependent on previous offences, general attitude, severity and the general nature and circumstances of the disruption) into the relevant policies. Granted, many of our more experienced Administrators do not require such education (for the most part), being able to rely on their own prior encounters for guidance. However, stating that all Protection actions (which are the subject of the issue at hand) are performed only be experienced sysops is a gross generalisation, and for that reason I would very much like to see the inclusion of rough protection lengths inserted into our policies, in order to prevent such extreme over-Protections occurring. Anthøny 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have long felt that semi-protection is overused. I once argued at some length that slut whould not be semi-protected.[27] Haukur (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will forgo the opportunity to make a very poor-taste joke to agree with you that semi-protection is indeed overused. There are, however, some scenarios that are worth semi-protection -- I can think of a few pages that aren't watched very often, but have been the subject of BLP issues, some of which involve OTRS requests. Ral315 » 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any templates or such that states that a page has some sort of OTRS issue? I know pages on probation via arbcom have a template but it might help us plebes out to know if a page has an issue of some sort. spryde | talk 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In many cases it's not prudent to tell everyone that an OTRS request occurred -- I usually make a note in the protection log, where anyone who needs to can find out, but where it's not obvious like a template. Ral315 » 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on blocked users and language used to criticise sources[edit]

I'm looking for some clarification, firstly on how our civility and no personal attacks policies apply to blocked users, and secondly on the standards required of the language used to criticise sources (when discussing issues of reliable sources) and those who have done the work behind such sources.

This has arisen from a specific case where a recently indefinitely blocked user has e-mailed me to complain about a series of comments someone has made about them on a user talk page (there is already bad blood between these two users). I was going to mention the specific case (and had written something about it), but I've just noticed that the user who made those comments has just gone on a wikibreak, so I've removed what I wrote and will avoid any specifics until the wikibreak is over and they have a chance to respond. For now, I've recommended that the blocked user in question avoids reading Wikipedia until they feel ready to file a new unblock request, as following what is being said and being unable to respond is hardly going to help the blocked user calm down. Still, I think an important point needs to be made here about how aggressive (if at all) editors on Wikipedia should be when criticising sources and the work of others, even if they have a poor opinion of them. The point here is that if they are wrong, or overdoing it (either in the case in question, or in later cases in the future), then they may be having an adverse and unwarranted effect on people's reputations.

So, the general questions are this: (1) When commenting on the edits or actions of a blocked user, is it acceptable to say things about them that might be considered a personal attack if they were unblocked and editing Wikipedia? (2) When criticising sources as unreliable, or pointing out that people are referring to or promoting their own work, or engaging in original research, should the language used remain calm and civil? Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. No, it's not, but it's more likely to be tolerated than if they were a user in good or okay standing.
  2. Yes, it should, but it often doesn't. A warning might be in order, depending on the circumstances. Ral315 » 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be any more acceptable to attack a blocked user than an unblocked user. No matter who the target is, personal attacks are just generally immature and unnecessary. I think language should remain civil when discussing anything, including sources, but I think it's important to remember that many people misunderstand polite criticism as incivility. Without the specific situation at hand it's hard to know whether the language used to criticize the sources was actually uncivil. Natalie (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks on Wikipedians editting in good faith simply encourage them to misbehave ("What have I got to lose -- the cabal has it out for me"), & doing this to even obvious troublemakers only encourages them to misbehave further. This is a corrolary to WP:DFTT. Besides, we need not adopt the tactics of our troublemakers to properly handle them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if this is a problem or not. I haven't notified anyone, as I don't know what I would say, yet. I was looking for "General User Survey" and came across User:ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo which purports to be a user page, but reads like an advertisment for a company named "Survey Gizmo". One of the named founders of the company is Michael McDaniel. What, if anything, should be done? Bielle (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) For similar pages, see also User:Skohler/IWoorx and User:Xyzu/XiaOS Bielle (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it was created several months ago to be worked on - never happened. As contains company name, has been blanked & blocked. FYI, the correct place to note these would be Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Thanks. SkierRMH (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know if the "spam" part was more significant than the "name" part, which is how I ended up here. Anyway, thanks for the help and the information. If I find something similar, I will know where to take it. Bielle (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally moved the article on SurveyGizmo to ScottMichaelMcDaniel (talk · contribs)'s subpage--a classic "userify potentially good article that needs a serious overhaul" move...I support the deletion as the article was never improved. Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention would not be an appropriate venue for this sort of thing--it's not a username, but a subpage. A {{prod}} or MfD would have been fine in place of the speedy deletion. — Scientizzle 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was restored twice predicated on improvents. However, no improvements were ever made, nor did the user make any edits outside that page or topic since. --Hu12 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Four months without any improvement on what was effectively spam is a perfectly reasonable speedy deletion. — Scientizzle 23:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice on sandbox inclusion in mainspace categories[edit]

Category:English_murder_victims includes a link to this sandbox page User:GORDONEH/SANDBOX. I'd like advice on how to remove the link in the main wiki space. Thanks in advance Trugster | Talk 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is remove the categories from the bottom of the page in question. In this case it appears that the user is working on an article in a personal sandbox and didn't remove the categories. I've removed them and will leave a note for the user explaining the issue. In the future, these question are better addressed at the Village Pump, as they don't require any administrator action. Natalie (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and apologies for bringing it up in the wrong place. Trugster | Talk 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, instead of removing them, I generally place <nowiki></nowiki> tags around them. That way they are still there, and are easily untagged if/when the article makes it back to regular article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if that would work. Another method would be to put a colon in before the name of the category, which will link to it without putting that page in the category, IIRC. I'll amend my note to the user to inform him/her of these other options. Natalie (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

WT:NOR could use an uninvolved sysop or two. There is some serious incivility occurring on that policy talk page and the atmosphere is already contentious from months of controversy and debate. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see a busy and very heated debate, but nothing at first glance that suggests it is out of hand. Some diffs would help if you have examples to show. Otherwise, the debate, whilst busy and heated, doesn't seem unproductive at the moment. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Some input[edit]

In clearing DumbBOT's list of broken AfDs, I came across an article that needs extra eyes. Due to WP:BLP concerns, I've stubbed it (and protected it - any admin can/should lift this at will), but left the history for the last revision to be looked it by you lot.

The article, Piotr Blass, has plenty of sources and is well laid out. But there's a major issue with the tone of the article. I know American law gives lots of leeway to parody in a way that British law does not (alas, alas). But the article read to me like a large pisstake [US: sarcastically written piece] that, whilst it may have been reporting the sources accurately(?) wasn't encyclopedic in tone.

I'd like extra eyes to verify, please: this could just be how my mind is wired (although I see an anon on the talk page and the anon AfD proto-nominator seem to agree) so a second etc opinion would help. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has a troubled history, not to mention the related restriction mentioned atop the talk page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination) is the best starting place for the article's history. I don't know where to start for the user's history; the userpage and block log are unrevealing. Fortunately, Ryulong and Durova are still around and can hopefully elucidate further on the user's history. It looks like most of the personal biography was pulled in pieces during the first half of May, without thought to rebalancing the rest of the article, and nobody stuck around to watch the article over the summer after it was unprotected, which didn't help any. GRBerry 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Piotr Blass is a perennial self-nominated individual for President who also happens to be a notable mathematician. Piotr Blass is also banned from editing Wikipedia. Any IP that adds fluff to the article and is based in Palm Beach can be determined to be him and reverted on sight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I just updated the DYK section on the main page. Their is no exact match to the license template on the image in the DYK section (Image:Ontario pavilion at Expo 67 colour.jpg). Would someone please fix it? Royalbroil 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. I protected the original image on Commons and deleted the local one... WjBscribe 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Even better. Thanks! What should I do in the future if I run into this problem since I am not an admin on Commons? Royalbroil 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it comes up often - the two projects should be using the same templates. If it does though, just use the closest template possible or copy and paste the Commons text - the templates are pretty but they're hardly necessary for a temporary upload. WjBscribe 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Anoyone can create a license template. Commons is not going to be able to keep track of all of them across all projects.Geni 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)



Would someone close the one remaining debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 21? Many of the usual DRV closers have participated in it, which is why it's still open a couple of days late. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Prodego talk 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully I didn't do anything stupid. Prodego talk 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic user User:Donreed[edit]

This was declined at AIV - but it seems like something should be done, so I'm raising it here. Donreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) He makes reasonably decent copy edits most of the time - but these appear to be aimed at hiding edits like I'm not sure it's worth anyone's time to trawl through this user's edits to dig out the nonsense he is inserting. I would suggest blocking as the user has been warned many times before Megapixie (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that there is a good deal of salvagable encyclopedic content in the diffs you provide, but neither can I say that any of the edits is strictly nonsense or is plainly vandalistic; indeed, in the absence of something compelling to the contrary, one would do well to conclude that each is made in good faith. To be sure, we (generally) block users the net effect of whose contributions on the project is negative and appears likely to remain negative, even when those users act, by any measure, in good faith and simply cannot (or elect not to) act consistent with our policies and guidelines and mission, and so this isn't so much a comment on the propriety of a block here as on the characterizations of the edits adduced as nonsense and of other copy-editing work as having been undertaken to "hid[e]" the offending edits, which seem, even if it matters little to the disposition of the underlying issue, a bit off.
On the underlying issue: David Broadfoot has suggested to the user, rather sensibly, IMHO, that the latter might do well to confine his Wikipedia involvement to reading articles. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a problematic pattern here. I'm sure Donreed's anecdotes are entertaining at parties, but they aren't exactly encyclopedic. I have asked Donreed to join in this discussion and explain what he thinks the purpose of Wikipedia is, and why he thinks these edits fit with that purpose. ··coelacan 10:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He's ploughed ahead with 40 edits since you wrote on his talk page "Please do not make any other edits to Wikipedia until you have joined in the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard." --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And another 18 edits since then... ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE PACIFIC: The fairly aceptable "volumes which they have purchased in hard copy form" has been mangled into "volumes that have purchased been in hard copy form"; BERETS: a detailed exposition of the difficulties matching sizes between continents; a crushingly boring anecdote about LINUS PAULING: "In 1992, a Silicon Valley technical writer got a call from his former girlfriend, asking him to pick her up at the airport. When he approached the jetway, wearing his usual leather jacket and beret, he saw her talking with an elderly man wearing a blue suit and a beret. He later found out that Laura had been seated randomly by the airline-reservation computer next to this mysterious man. She had asked: "Are you Linus Pauling?" "Yes," he replied. She learned that Pauling was returning from his wife's funeral in Los Angeles; Laura had returned from a family visit herself."; an edit premised on the misconception that being a Unitarian Universalist and being an atheist are mutually exclusive; a supposition about AEROBIC EXERCISE; and, finally, some good copyediting on BLACK HOLES. --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite six requests, from various users, that he use Edit Summaries, I note that he has only done soonce for the last 100 edits. And that was to assert "I've corrected this fictitious quote to the way it is most often quoted.", when in fact, as I wrote below, that it was most often quoted the other way, but a factor of 1,000:1. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This takes the cake [28] (all but the first paragragh was added by User:Donreed, and reverted by User:Megapixie). We've got it all here: chatty conjecture; questions; suggestions; discussion of his Google searches; a list that contains one numbered entry, and one bullet point; and to cap it all off, a suggestion that the much-published journalist in question may never have been born! Lucky he only touched on what is "not known" by him, else the article would have exceeded the size limit (of the Internet.) He even ended those edits with his nickname: 'disinformation' --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed - a two-day synopsis (phew!)[edit]

I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits, but they do make it very difficult to revert - forcing one to either throw out the good with the bad (as I've seen several editors doing with Donreed's contributions), or waste a lot of time correcting them. The multiple edits are a result of lack of thought and preparation: many typos are subsequently fixed in dribs and drabs; additional nonsense and anecdotes are added in dribs & drabs; invalid internal links he has added are repaired; etc.

I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith. It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive. I have trawled through his edits of the past couple of days, and note that nearly all of his edits, especially those of a substantial nature, have been reverted by other users - so he is really wasting not only his own time, but that of many others as well.

His contributions include:

  • numerous edits to swap "that" for "which", his use of the appropriate restrictive or descriptive pronoun always being correct.
  • insertion of commas, mostly in the appropriate places, though often far too heavy-handed with them.
  • re-phrasing attempts that are sometimes good, sometimes resulting in worse phraseology, and, very worryingly, attempts that end up changing the meaning of the sentence to inadvertently change its meaning to one that is incorrect.
  • inane chatty comments like these: [29] and [30] (reversion by User:Ryulong) and [31] (reversion by User:Megapixie) and [32] (reversion of Amazon shopping advice and other crud by User:David Broadfoot) and [33] (reversion by User:Key to the city)
  • this pay-for-porn--amazon-is-best--no-it's-free-after-all sequence (which was all reverted by User:Megapixie) is a classic:
    • at 17:49 he added useless chatty info about an adult site's details and price of $950 (when what he should have been doing was deleting the link to the copyrighted text instead) [35]
    • at 17:54 he added Amazon pricing/buying tips [36]
    • at 17:55 he decided that you don't have to pay the porn $950 after all to view that link - it's free [37]
  • in [38] he contributes legal advice regarding copyright, that is not only US-specific, but also incorrect in any case. (See [39] - one only needs to deposit works in the Library of Congress to avoid fines; and even then only if the work is "published". The requirement, as loose as it is, does not even extent to private/secret copyrighted works.)
  • [40] included fluff like "It is surprising that dozens of men and women who deal with aviation emergencies or possible air war every day had not read Tom CLancy's novel Debt of Honor".
  • In the article 'Professors', he launches into a lengthy diatribe about Silicon Valley real estate prices, and the 99-year Hong Kong lease and the quality of campus libraries here [41] which he further elaborated into a comparative analysis of various libraries here [42] and then launches into a completely uninteresting account of how libraries handle the problem of overdue books; followed by a self-admitted "apocryphal tale" ending with "Apparently, he was never charged with an indiscretion, much less a crime." ending with an admonition to himself to cite a reference - fascinating reading here: [43]. Yes, that was all in the Wikipedia entry for Professor!
  • More false information contained in an alleged "correction" by Donreed here [44] where he asserts that his version of the alleged quote is more the more common one. However, a Google search shows that the allegedly less common quote is actually 1,000 times more common. Reverted by User:David Broadfoot
  • in [45] he added two commas to the sentence: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization" to give: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, which hangs in the National Archives, had slightly different capitalization" which imparts a different (and incorrect) meaning to sentence. He then added more junk, misspellings, and missing punctuation.
  • his entry [47] is unencyclopedic, contains unnecessary edits, incorrect punctuation, and even an aside inserted into middle of a quotation!
  • [48] he mistakenly believes that "non-mainstream" is the same thing as "not peer-reviewed" and edited the article to include this mistaken 'information' as a clarification. Furthermore, he presumptively adds that those reports were all in "physics journals" - a mere assumption, and an incorrect one at that. He is turning Wikipedia into a collection of conjecture masquerading as fact.
  • in [49] he edited a literal quotation to correct grammar / punctuation.
  • his contribution [50] was reverted by User:TEB728 with the comment: "(this is true but irrelevant to an article on English)"
  • in [51] he changed "Indian literary and vernacular language" to "Indian literary and vernacular languages" - subtly changing the meaning.
  • in his edit [58] he added the words "electorions", "engaglged", made an unnecessary reword from an acceptable "were once" to a tautological "had formerly been". He also changed "malpractice" to "malfeasance" because he thought it was more appropriate - it would have been better usage, except for the fact that they were actually charged with "malpractice".
  • in [59] User:Cloonmore reverted what he called Donreed's "unsourced claim that the song's about a Jane from Tudor English history"
  • in [60] he changed the sentence: "She was never crowned because of an epidemic of plague in London where the coronation was to take place" to a very torturous, and comma-loving: "She was never crowned, because London, where the coronation was to take place, was hit by a plague epidemic." It was reverted by User:Secisek here: [61]
  • User:David Broadfoot reverted [62] to remove classic Donreedian gems like "elderly people often die, even if they are not killed" and the word "differinging".
  • [63] and [64] and [65] were all reverted by User:Secisek with the comment "(Tell me you didn't just add WP:OR and then fact tag it yourself. Revert)" here [66]. Yes, amazingly, Donreed makes a habit of introducing 'original research' and opinion - and fact-tagging it himself.
  • [67] and [68] and [69] and [70] and [71] and [72] and [73] and [74] (containing classic Donreedisms like "A person with unlimited funds could simply buy all back issues of Penthouse,—except for a few that have been withdrawn from circulation or become extremely rare, like the Vanessa Lynn Williams and Traci Lords issues—read them all, and maybe find the article." were all reverted by User:Oneiros here [75]
  • in [76] he ventures into the finance world, changing the accepted accounting phraseology "General Media had been cash flow positive for the prior 10 years" to an obtuse "General Media had had a positive cash flow for the prior 10 years". Reverted by User:Oneiros here: [77].
  • [78] was reverted by me with the comment that 'his pen name wasn't "Latinized to" anything... his real name was Latinized to produce his pen name' - another well-meaning attempt to copyedit that actually balls things up.
  • in [79] he changes "money" to "themoney". Another undesirable edit, even if he had bothered to write "the money" instead.
  • in [80] he gives us shopping advice for "goatskin leather jackets" from LL Bean - very inappropriately included in the "Memorials" section too, but let's just dump the trash anywhere. Reverted by User:Dbrodbeck.
  • in [81] he moved into the field of Corporations and Securities advice when he changed "traded on the public markets" to "public companies". However, there is no requirement that a public company has to be listed, so his edit left the article factually incorrect.
  • in [83] he changed "hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability" to "hydrodynamics and hydromagnetic stability", but that changes the meaning: the scientist didn't work on "hydrodynamics" - he worked specifically on "hydrodynamic stability", as stated in the original version of the text. Also, his addition of "((The footnotes themselves do not reveal the contents of the papers cited. Any scholar with access to a good university library can track them down)" here [84] is again unencyclopedic, apart from the unmatched parentheses. Those two edits, and another two were rolled back by User:Megapixie.

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway. -- David Broadfoot (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to two-day synopsis[edit]

I can understand your frustration with this user, but there is no need to conclude your account with the words you have chosen. If he does read this detailed critique, those words will simply insult him, & we'll have one more disgruntled user -- if not a vandal -- on our hands. And have missed an opportunity to educate him about how to write an encyclopedia. As for insisting that we Admins do something about a user who is making marginal contributions to Wikipedia, Admins don't have any abilities that a competent, articulate editor doesn't have -- except for blocking him, & I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution in this instance. -- llywrch (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. I think "DONTREAD" and "delete on sight" are reasonable responses. Not pefect, just reasonable.
  2. You wouldn't have a disgruntled vandal on your hands if he is blocked (he would be blocked.) You have many disgruntled users on your hands because he is not blocked.
  3. I never insisted that Admins do something about it.
  4. His contributions aren't "marginal" - they are disruptive.
  5. I am convinced it he needs to be bocked. He is ignoring all feedback from the Wikipdia community, and he is doing more harm than good.
Cheers --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So in effect, you are proposing that "too stupid to edit" is a proper critereon to block/ban people from Wikipedia. That is, in effect, what you are proposing -- & you can't state in one place that he's "editing in good faith" while in another claim that he's being disruptive. Need I explain why banning people for marginal or mediocre edits is a bad idea? -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no need to characterise it as "too stupid to edit". You should just stick to the facts: no matter what the cause/reason leading to all the disruptive editing, it's a simple matter of violation of Wikipedia policy, so I can't see why you are so keen to defend it (and you are the only one posting here who is not in favour of blocking.) Others have also characterized it as "disruptive editing", so why do you continually downplay his disruption by describing it as "marginal and mediocre edits" when a more accurate description is "voluminous and unencyclopedic". And I can state that I think that his edits are in good faith (though I could be wrong) and also claim that he is being disruptive - the two things are not mutually exclusive. For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here. The Wikipedia policy on that is clear - why don't you wan't to follow Wikipedia policy? --David Broadfoot (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Because I don't think that it is Wikipedia policy -- pure & simple. (I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that. Maybe that's why I have some sympathy for this person.) Remember, part of the concept behind be bold is that an editor shouldn't have to worry about being second-guessed by another editor who, without prior warning, decides all of his mistakes are disruptive & calls him to be banned -- perhaps permanently. This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement -- I won't deny that -- which is why I call his edits "marginal and mediocre". I don't follow your reasoning, however, why his mistakes are disruptive: contributors to Wikipedia have their edits reverted or changed all of the time, & often for mistakes. For example, many of my own edits are modified due to typos, misspellings -- or because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?
However, I think Guy has shown the proper solution below: focus on the fact that people have offered to help him improve his edits, but because he has ignored their offers to talk with him, he is blocked until he opens a discussion -- which was my original point. You would have us block him for punitive reasons, for of his mediocre or "disruptive" edits; Guy extended a good-faith block to get this user's attention, to get him to talk about his contributions & see if someone can't educate him about this problem. And I'd go a little further, & state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then perhaps he be given an indefinite block (and not a permanent ban) until he does talk with another Wikipedian.
One last point. Wikipedia is not a democracy: the fact it appears that I'm the only one disagreeing with you should not be a factor in this discussion. Until now, I have not set forth in detail my argument, so it may be that other people reading this thread are waiting until I did so to either agree -- or disagree with my opinion here. After all, I am not saying that this user is a problem -- obviously he is; I am instead saying that taking the time & effort to pillory a user here for his mistakes -- which is what you have done -- is not a constructive way to handle this. Because it is hard not to read the final paragraph in your lengthy post on Donreed as an unnecesary, & perhaps disruptive, personal attack. -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Re your answer: "Because I don't think that it is Wikipedia policy -- pure & simple." is not much of a response given that I had pointed out the specific policy breaches causing the disruption when I wrote: "For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here"
Re your comment: "I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that" - I did not criticise him for that - I complimented him for that. You might categorise certain grammar rules as subtle, but incorrect use of of the restrictive and descriptive pronoun can result, at worse, in the wrong meaning being imparted, and, at best, anoyance for those who know the grammar rules. The other subtle change he made, compounded by another user's even more subtle edit, resulted in a sentence that put a positive spin on something (Cold Fusion) that the sentence had previously put a negative spin.
The issue has nothing to do with being bold - it has to do with the quality of the contributions and the refusal to accept commuity input. You keep trying on straw man arguments.
Your justification "This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement ... which is why I call his edits 'marginal and mediocre'." Well... a lot of bad judgment is quite different to marginal and mediocre.
I didn't decide that "all of his mistakes are disruptive" - I decided that many of his contributions are disruptive due to their unencyclopedic nature and his repeated failure to satisfy verifiability along with his rejection of commnity input.
I respond similarly to your next question: "because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?" Donreed didn't just quote some fact from memory incorrectly - Why do you repeatdly try to distort the facts? Another straw man argument.
You contradict yourself when you say that Guy did the right thing by blocking the user, when you had only just argued "I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution."
Where do you get off making an accusation like: "You would have us block him for punitive reasons". Another straw man argument.
You then state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then he should be given an indefinite block. That's not necessary. It is only necessary that changes the way he edits.
As for accusing me of making a personal attack, I have only made three ad hominem comments:
  1. "I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits"
  2. "I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith."
  3. "It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive."
The first two support him - quite hte opposite of an attack. The third is a direct deduction based on the evidence.
On the other hand, it was you who categorised him as "too stupid to edit".
I make no apologies for stating that his disruption is causing a great waste of our time, and that his contributions are not worth reading. Meanwhile, you continue to be the only one arguing that Donreed is not being disruptive even after he was blocked (which makes me wonder one what basis you now agree with the block.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talkcontribs) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You seem to have overlooked the following comments (emphasis mine):

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway.

After reading those words, your claim that you complimented his work cannot be read as anything other than disingenuous. And it is this kind of commentary that muddies the waters in conflicts, leads to those passionate edit wars which make Admins reluctant to get involved, & which wind up in ArbCom. At this point, it is obviously clear that you apparently do not want to listen to gentle suggestions along the lines of honey, flies & vinegar, so I'm discontinuing this thread. Enjoy editting Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have overlooked everything else I said. I did compliment what good work he did (though through your lack of comprehension you took that as a criticism) and I did not overlook my "DONTREAD" comment (in fact I referred to it in my response.) You continue to be obtuse and repeat your claims (without giving any reasons) that Donreed is not being disruptive, when everyone else says that he is, and even though the Wikipedia policy specifically refers to what he has been doing as being disruptive. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Here is Wikipedia's definition of disruptive editing. --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Does any of this guideline ring a bell in light of Mr. Reed's edits? I'm giving him a final warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • So, he's continuing to add uncited content to articles, and has not responded to two comments on Talk. Blocked 24h. What next? Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed's last words[edit]

Last words before being blocked: "After Sears was bought by [[KMart]], many customers believe that Lands' End's quality has declined: navy-blue blazers are not the very dark midnight blue they formerly were.... {{fact}}"[85] (yes, a fashion statement, complete with a 'fact' tag.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed still at it[edit]

Well, he's back. This edit is just another anecdote, but on the other hand, this edit is sensible. Graham87 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to learning or responding to the comments left on his talkpage - take his two most recent edits - This level of violence, although not directed at people, was surprising in a group of gay men that had been expected to act like "sissies" and It is possible that she culd have taken over Sandra Day O'Connor's role of basketball coach in the Highest Court in the land. Blocking is intended to preventative rather than punitive - I suggest he's blocked again until he engages with dialogue with other editors about concerns. It's not malicious but his editing is disruptive. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example of this ongoing problem - having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This user has used an edit summary 10 times in his last 1,000 main space edits (1% rate). He has made three talk page comments in his 1.5 years with the project. (2 to his own talk page, 1 to a category talk page.) Can we say failure to communicate? I've undone this set for WP:BLP violation. He needs at the very least to notice discussion and modify his behavior based on it; also joining the discussions would be even better. GRBerry 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


  1. in the article on Neil Young, he added: "His nearest neighbor for many years was chemist Carl Djerassi, who owned an adjacent property. After 1978, Djerassi's cattle ranch became the Djerassi Resident Artists Program, an art colony, which is owned by the Djerassi Foundation."[86] reverted for unsourced and irrelevant guff about a neighbour's property.
  2. getting into problems again by writing on technical issues that doesn't understand, he added this sentence "The name Auric refers to the one valence state of gold that allows chemical combination." For a start, "Auric" gold has valence 3, not 1. Valence 1 is "aurous" gold.[87]
  3. added unencyclopedic language in Chemistry set: "dangerous—even in the hands of idiots"[88]
  4. and added "antisterrorisn police agencies usually looked only in the wrong part of town"[89] both reverted by User:Fredrick day
  5. added another unsubstantiated anecdote on hacking, reverted by User:Graham87 [90]
  6. in the article on Cyanide he added: "According to the fictional [[forensic pathologist Dr Kay Scarpetta, the ability to smell HCN is a hereditary trait possessed by about one third of the population. {{fact}}>"[91] so we have fictional input to science articles.
  7. He change "The urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body." to: "The urethra is the tube that generally carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body; during ejaculation, the male urethra carries semen outside the body (and typically into another person's body.)"] reverted by User:GRBerry for including an inappropriate comment.
    The comment was later in the diff; the sentence beginning "Doctors will feel... GRBerry 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    Oh I hadn't even read that far down to "Doctors will feel nothing—it's not their body being penetrated" - I wonder why he thinks it appropriate to insert tired old jokes in Wikipedia. One could be forgiven for thinking that he's a troll from a rival encyclopedia, sent to see how much garbage he can inject into Wikipedia, or how slowly the admins react. --David Broadfoot (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. inserted a comma between the subject of a sentence and its verb[92]

I echo what User:Fredrick day said: "having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time". Even then, I've still come along afterwards and found more clear examples that had been missed. User:Donreed he edits full-time from 9am to midnight every day. There must be lot of old stuff that's slipped through the net, undermining the quality of Wikipedia. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Is it possible to block a user from editing the main namespace, but still allow him/her to edit Talk pages? If it's technically feasible, such an action might encourage Donreed to engage in a conversation with other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to endorse all of the comments above about user Donreed. I have been reviewing some of his edits over the last month or so, since I encountered him around mid-October, and I have reverted edits of his that were unreferenced, chatty, off-topic, POV, and just wrong. For instance, see this edit of his - a story I was unable to verify anywhere on the web; this pointless anecdote that I removed from the Anthony Hopkins article; these almost-completely off-topic additions to the Auction article; and this addition to Lingua franca that I found frankly unlikely. I also agree that it is highly disturbing that he fails to respond to comments on his page or on talk pages. He does a great deal of harmless or even helpful grammatical cleanup, but his edits can be most damaging when they are on-topic, plausible, but apparently unverifiable (or possibly untrue), as with the story about the Apple company meeting. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put a number of suggestions and warnings on Donreed's talk page following his edits of the past several hours. Unfortunately, it's unhelpful that one Administrator (User:llywrch) is providing effective support to User:Donreed's behaviour by still arguing here that it is not disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talkcontribs) 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again[edit]

I have blocked Donreed indefinitely and left a message at his talk page explaining the situation. The unverifiable edits and probable violations of our policy on biographies of living people, coupled with the editors lack of communication, are good reasons for an indefinite block, despite the helpful copyediting. All parties in this conversation implied this was coming eventually - I don't see the point in letting the disruptive editing continue. Be on the lookout for possible sockpuppets. Graham87 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see the contributions of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which is apparently his IP address and was autoblocked. It's a real estate company so I doubt there's much collateral damage there. Graham87 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the edits here myself, but if the accounts above are accurate, this may be the rare case where we have to regretfully excuse from the project someone who is simply unable to edit properly. Compare the very recent decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious deletion[edit]

Can someone please try and see why this article 1993_child_molestation_allegations_against_Michael_Jackson was deleted as the reason given (that it was a redirect to an article that seems not to exist) seems extremely dubious. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a redirect to an article (as the result of a move) which was deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson. Fram (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As that subject is clearly notable it should not have been deleted. It appears the redirect to a blatant mispelling may have been an attempt to discredit the article and prevent persons watching the other article from knowing about the deletion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
An archive of the article is here. Although some of the sources look dubious CourtTV is certainly a reliable source and there is plenty of information at the website here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, when a page on your watchlist is moved, the "new" page is added to your watchlist as well. Of course, when running through your watchlist, you may not realise they are one and the same. As for your other comments, they are for WP:DRV, not for this noticeboard. Fram (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
On DRV it says I should take it to either the closing admin or the noticeboard first- I assume I should just go straight ahead and start the review. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything on DRV that says you should come to the admin's noticeboard first. It does that exceptional cases can usually be resolved quickly here, so perhaps there is a misunderstanding of "exceptional"
What I do see, though, is a request to contact the closing admin first, which you don't appear to have done. That would have also been the appropriate first step to find out about the deletion of the redirect. As a general rule, try to talk to the person first. Natalie (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that "notability" was not the reason for deletion and not the only inclusion criteria. It was a poorly sourced WP:BLP disaster with some concerns about neutrality. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the subject is clearly notable. Just because an article has bad sources it doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means you should remove the bad sources and stubify the article. Regarding coming to the board I hadn't even known about the afd (Fram told me about it above). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a great idea in theory, but this is an article with serious BLP concerns, and one that probably isn't best served starting as its own article -- if anything, it should be developed on Michael Jackson or a page thereof, and split off. Otherwise, a page like that is likely to get little editing, and can be very inflammatory -- stubbed or not. Ral315 » 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Gustav, you can always find out who deleted an article, since it's listed in the deletion log. Ral's suggestion to start the article in Michael Jackson is also a good one, since that article will get quite a bit more attention. Natalie (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me...[edit]

...or is TWINKLE causing a few too many problems?

I'm aware of my own bias against automatic editing tools in general, but Twinkle is starting to get up my nose on a couple of scores.

  1. The vast majority of TW additions to WP:AIV state "indicates a vandalism-only account" - whether reporting a vandalism-only account, a six-month old stale edit or an admin removing BLP guff. It's like it's checked by default. This really must stop, because it is devaluing the meaning of the phrase, if nothing else. See here for a similar example - "vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block" - last warning given days ago, a block that ended in August, for a single edit made by a dynamic IP.
  2. The automated "warning" feature that doesn't think to whitelist reputable editors and allows inherently nonsensical "warnings" to be placed on the talk page of respected admins because the user isn't double checking what's in front of them (or TWINKLE is letting them ignore edit conflicts).

This tool is also letting people tag and run with really crappy CSD reasonings, so you have to either deny the speedy (and have someone else with Twinkle come along and retag immediately) or delete for a different reason (and then, when the creator challenges the tagger, say "it's nothing to do with me, ask the admin why they deleted it").

I don't know what can be done, and so many people are wedded to their automated admin-getting shortcut devices that I'll expect to be roasted here for piping up, but it seems worth asking if anyone else is as PO-ed as I am with all this. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of it either for the reasons you listed and more (mainly the overeagerness it allows) . Is it feasible to set up an approval system like AWB does? John Reaves 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The first thing seems to be a problem with Twinkle users, not the script itself - looking at the reporting menu, "Vandalism after final warning given," "Vandalism after recent release of block," "Evidently vandalism only account," and "Account is evidently a spambot or a compromized account" are all unchecked by default. Perhaps we need to be more proactive in telling people the proper way to report. As far as point 2 goes, if a user is warning people that they shouldn't, that is the user's responsibility to do a common sense check. As far as CSD taggings go, I don't see much of a problem. In the case that you cited, it was tagged as {{db-bio}} and you deleted it as such. "The choice of whether or not to speedily delete any given page matching these [CSD] criteria is ultimately up to administrator discretion." Since when are the standard templates crappy reasons? An approval system would be good though, we require it for Vandalproof. Admins also need to consider removing the scripts from a user's JS file in the case of misuse. Mr.Z-man 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that it also no longer allows reporting IPs as vandal only accounts. Mr.Z-man 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
apparently it does. John Reaves 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem in that case was not Twinkle but User:Timotab/twinklearv.js - a copy of Twinkle part of User:Timotab/twinklefix.js, the purpose of which is unclear. The change to the real version of Twinkle that does not allow IPs to be reported as vandalism only accounts is not reflected in that old version that some people are using for an unknown reason. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That version was created after a large update of Twinkle, and there were many users who experienced problems with it. Timotab created that as a store of the old version until the new one was fixed. I'd imagine people who used it for that breif amout of time just forgot to revert to the official version. I (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't speak for anyone else, but if I'm doing a TW-enabled report to AIV, I try to always give an additional explanation or reason, even if it's just a few words. I may have one or two assisted edits without, but that's how I approach it. It's certainly a far easier way to deal with someone who's doing rapid-fire edits and ignoring all warnings; often, when I'm doing a manual edit, I find that I deal with lots of edit conflicts. (Kind of like that one.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a twinkle thing - you also get people claiming they have no idea who created an article they tagged for speedy, because twinkle handled the notice on the editor's talk page. This can lead to misunderstanding and bad feeling. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but as I disagree with everything that Redvers said, I thought I might share:
1. "the vandalism only" phrase is determined by ticking a box, so it's up to the user to use it correctly, you get incorrect reports from people not using twinkle also, twinkle is not at the fault the users might be
2. Warning the user is a condition sine qua non, for the deletion of an article, if the user wasn't warned the page should not be deleted. The example you give Joanne King is clear example of page needing to be speedy deleted in my opinion. Also that admin declined a speedy deletion request on a page for which he is the author clearly violating policy, and proving the warning was in fact necessary, because he does not understand he can't remove a speedy deletion tag from a page he created, something the template is there to inform him of.
Twinkle really helps so much it's amazing, (well as amazing as a script can be anyway). I agree it's not really needed for AIV reports, but still helps and I see no disadvantage to it. However for deletion tagging it is invaluable. For example if I am browsing at random and come across a fair-use image in violation of policy, I can tag it, and warn the uploader and mark all the articles in just a few clicks, if I didn't have Twinkle I would probably just ignore it. I don't feel like I have ever deliberately misused Twinkle, if you have a problem with one of my edits, tell me and I will see how I can fix it. The number of positive twinkle edits far outweighs the bad ones. By this logic we could make all editors require approval before being able to edit, we all know there is a fair share of stupid edits made only using a browser. The other week I tagged well over 100 images for deletion in one day because of an invalid license template, all have been deleted except one, which I made a mistake on. However I accept it was my error, and the user who contested it never tried to blame Twinkle. Jackaranga (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Basically I oppose treating an admin differently, and if you really want me to start digging up proof that not all admins abide by policy at all time I can but it will be very puerile. Jackaranga (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with Ioeth removing the speedy tag from that page. The article was created, moved, and tagged for speedy deletion in the same minute, and the redirect that was tagged was tagged as an A7. Looks to me like a Twinkle problem related to the time it takes the script to parse and act. Removing the obviously incorrect A7 on the redirect is common sense. WODUP 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, that it is not Twinkle doing these things by default. It is quite user-dependent, in fact, when you click the AIV tag, none of the boxes are checked, so unless one checks a box, no reason for the report is given. I too, nearly always write in the box an explanation for my reports, and almost always provide multiple diffs to back up the report, as well as to assist the reviewing administrator at AIV. I do the same with WP:UAA when reporting there with Twinkle. The CSD tags are the same, no box is checked by default, so unless the editor understands the WP:CSD criteria, they may check an incorrect reason. I agree that Twinkle is a very powerful tool, and I don't think an "approval" list for it is necessarily a bad thing, because I've seen many new editors jump into vandalism fighting with little to no knowledge of policy or guideline, and that causes a number of problems, for obvious reasons. However, the tool itself works nearly flawlessly, if one uses it correctly, and I'm not sure an approval list is something that is planned. ArielGold 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If one is running the newest version of Twinkle, the "vandalism only account" box is greyed out, and cannot be checked as an option when reporting IPs. However, if someone is running an older (or customized) version, that would explain why that option is still available with IP reporting. (And yes, that's another one of the issues, but AzaToth fixed it a while back with an update.) ArielGold 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
One point: Ioeth didn't create the Joanne King page. That the warning ended up at User talk:Ioeth is a bugfeature. I've been warned that pages I've created - but did not - are going to be speedily deleted. It's caused by someone hitting buttons in TW at the same time as things are moved. The person doing the move created the redirect, so TW sticks the warning on their user page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(2ec now) Would allowing only some users to be approved be difficult because it's a script and not an application? To Angus, that's what I figured. WODUP 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It might be impossible. You could just remove whatever portion of the script checks that you can use it. Prodego talk 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) As for approval, I think security through obscurity might work here. In my experience, a large portion of new users (and hence probably) RC patrollers don't know how to include scripts without explicitly being told. Removing the part of the script that checks for approval is even more obscure and requires basic programming skills. When it comes to rubber stamping, the admin can place the script in the user's monobook. MER-C 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a proposal on WT:TW to limit it to autoconfimed users, which should be done at the very least. east.718 at 04:14, November 29, 2007