Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

The Southern Avenger[edit]

More eyes would probably be useful at this festival of sockpuppetry; the votestacking, off-wiki canvassing and accusations are already starting to fly and it's been live less than 24 hours. – iridescent 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this is also at ANI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following was moved from ANI:

CANVASSing

Hi. There seems to be a bit of an off-wiki canvassing situation at this AfD. See here. (The top comment on the journal, as well as containing a direct link to the AfD, says, "The Southern Avenger article in wikipedia is being disputed for deletion for questions of notability. Please vote for no deletion.") I wouldn't be surprised, given the amount of SPA participation, if canvassing had taken place elsewhere, too. I tagged the AfD {{notaballot}} and marked the {{spa}} contributors (but assumed good faith on those who just seem to have quite suddenly stumbled upon this AfD after a period of inactivity.) Is there something else that should be done? Or could be? This is a new one on me! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to post a reply on the blog, to discourage people from !voting because of that, but it was caught by a spam filter on the comments. No idea what's with that. Still, with luck it'll go up and SPAs will curb, though I wouldn't count on it. Maybe just pointing them at WP:ATA would help, so they at least make valid arguments. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

everything above this post, and below the previous "small" post, was moved over from ANI Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090[edit]

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as.[1] He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Ameriquedialectics 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Ameriquedialectics 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Wikipedia to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Wikipedia is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.
That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as [User:House1090]] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Ameriquedialectics 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru talk 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Wikipedia is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA[edit]

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegantalk 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity[edit]

Resolved: Heading toward a solution at Talk:Fraternity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Wikipedia policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090[edit]

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as.[2] He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Ameriquedialectics 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Ameriquedialectics 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Wikipedia to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Wikipedia is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.
That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as [User:House1090]] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Ameriquedialectics 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru talk 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Wikipedia is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA[edit]

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegantalk 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity[edit]

Resolved: Heading toward a solution at Talk:Fraternity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Wikipedia policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Arjun MBT thread[edit]

Resolved: Not vandalism, but a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arjun MBT thread has been vandalized by multiple users. The Quality B article has been compromised.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Links to articles and diffs are always useful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a content dispute taking place at Arjun MBT, which is a tank being built for the Indian army. Admin Jauerback has joined in the discussion at Talk:Arjun MBT. I'm marking this resolved, since the edits are not vandalism. If editors can't reach agreement on the Talk page, they should follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

template:ImageUpload[edit]

What is up with {{ImageUpload}}—it seems to be linked from a lot of pages and seems to have a recursive loop, but no history to revert to? G.A.S 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It included itself twice. Besides that, it was a test page, so I deleted it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's up the links, but probably they can be removed. {{ImageUpload}} is probably a useful thing to have, but all the versions of it (all three, one by me cleaning it up) have been crap thus far. There might've been instructions put in to use it at WP:UPI or something for a while, but it doesn't seem to be usefully used on any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the links. It seems to me that this template is used on Commons as well, but is a blank protected page (Protected "Template:ImageUpload": Used by MediaWiki:UploadForm.js [edit=sysop:move=sysop]). It might be that this page is used for the same purpose here; in which case it might be a good idea to recreate here as a blank protected page; as it is transcluded onto the image namespace pages that are recreated here for use on the main page. G.A.S 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial vanity spammer[edit]

This individual has now reached the point where his serial vanity spamming is actively counterproductive, obscuring whatever notability may attach to the subjects he uses as coatracks on which to hang his resume and that of his family members. The Banerjee center is, according to Benmjiboi, being "targeted by removal of sourced content", but actually that was William checking the sources and removing bogus ones; this individual has manipulated sources to the point of outright falsification, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot attack[edit]

Resolved: all accounts blocked

Semi-retired in my case doesn't mean I won't log on and check things once in a while. The user creation log is being bombarded by random character usernames which in turn are creating others. One in particular is adding cleanup notices to random articles at lightning pace. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like they've been clobbered. See you 'round sometimes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please be add more "semi" to your "retired" status. We need more good editors. Chillum 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See related IP User talk:82.5.162.85. Maybe someone should run a CU and do a rangeblock... Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm at work and can't get to reverting all the edits by Special:Contributions/82.5.162.85. Can somebody else go through the list? I tackled the bottom few, but have to get back to my RL job. DeFaultRyan (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think they are all done now. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When will vandals learn that we can undo vandalism easier than they can create it? Chillum 17:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Some will never learn. I've seen vandals get blocked, reset their router, create a new account, open ten tabs then vandalise like mad for about a min. I block the account, go to their contributions list, rollback everything, and delete thier userpage. Takes me seconds to do, takes them minutes, It's kind of unfair really. We should give them 10 minutes headstart ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfair ehh? That sounds like about how it should be. Let them spend minutes for what it takes us seconds to undo. The world has so many childish people, it is only to be expected that we get our fair share. Chillum 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but we could give them a head start to even the odds. To be sporting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!![edit]

User with constructive edits but a name that puts his user/talk pages in the title blacklist filter thingo. If admins can bypass that, anyone want to suggest a rename? —Giggy 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps "User:Screaming loudly" - though I don't think that was what you were asking for. ViridaeTalk 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've welcomed him on his talk page, are you able to edit it now and discuss the username issue with him? –xeno (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I left a note explaining the situation but it may be a bit confusing for someone new. I know that if I had received that message when I was new I would understand none of it. James086Talk | Email 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The user is probably going to need some help in figuring out how to change his name or some one may want to request a name change with the user's consent. RgoodermoteNot an admin  15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
By trial and error I determined that the repeated "!" (three or more) is the source of the problem. The infamous User:!! (if he were still editing Frowny.svg) would narrowly avoid being affected by it. "AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH" by itself does not trigger anything (though it would still be a less than desirable username). — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The user name is confusing (now how may 'Hs' should you type to write his name?) and should be changed. It is not conducive to accepting the user as a serious editor. Give him/her a couple of days to respond (if they don't resume editing sooner), then block as inapropriate user name and allow them to change it. -- Alexf42 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, to play devil's advocate, there's exactly 5 of each character... Maybe he's doing a kind of The Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh thing, but missed the R? –xeno (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Xeno, don't be playing "devil's" ANYTHING in this joint--it'll get you marked as a dangerous influence.Gladys J Cortez 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even one ! in a name will interfere with templates and that 3 !!! gets hit by the name filters. RlevseTalk 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're still playing the "suggest alternatives" game, then perhaps cropping the name to AGH! would be the course involving least change for this guy... However, it's probably best if we simply say "look, you need to change your name: it's not really appropriate", let him chose an alternative (perhaps with some examples and guidance from us), and point him towards changing username. Unless that has already been done? Anthøny 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:IncoherentScream and User:IncoherentScreaming are both available, apparently :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I would too easily confuse that with NonvocalScream or whatever account he's using these days. — CharlotteWebb 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bzuk is WP:OWNing Howard Hughes[edit]

User:Bzuk feels that cite templates are useless and because he/she has majority he/she knows what's beset. See here: [3] The user has also been warned with {{uw-delete1}} and {{uw-own}}. Can someone remind him of MoS (cite templates are preferred}} and make him/her aware of WP policies especially WP:OWN. El Greco(talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

El Greco began an edit war. He was asked to stop the disruption. My reply is no one is owning the article. Cite templates are neither preferred nor recommended; editing can be done by anyone. Another editor changed all the recent edits to his style, I changed them back to another style and made corrections. This editor continued to template me after I asked him or her to stop. FWiW I posted to his talk page, he templated me. Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Ah no, you edits reverted another users contributions that were bringing the article up to par, that's WP:OWN. El Greco(talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about, the edits made were about citations and references, you reverted everything, errors included. The article is being edited, you treated this as a case of vandalism, using reversion. Edits were corrected not reverted. You revert only when there is vandalism involved and then you treated me like the vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
No I didn't treat it as vandalism I treated it as a user trying to institute his/her will on the article page. By undoing good-faith edits by User:Emerson7 Why did you undo his edits? Was he vandalizing? El Greco(talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, who is this User to tell enough with warning him of WP:OWN: [4]. If you breach it, you will get warned. Note the previous revert (archive) on User:Bzuk's talk page [5] and [6]????? Obviously it would be nice to talk on his talk page, but they vanish. El Greco(talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
His edits were not reverted, they were corrected. There were simple errors made throughout the entire article in spelling and punctuation. The cites were established throughout the entire article in one style, I followed that style, especially when the new edits introduced ISO dating which was not consistent with the date format being used, and since the template can't easily change to that date format, it had to be rewritten with no changes made to the actual information as I used the exact wording that was used by the earlier editor. There were also errors in the reference section that I also corrected. You simply reverted all the changes not looking at anything that was done. I never change other editor's work arbitrarily but that wasn't they way you operated, you instead immediately reverted, claiming that MoS was being at stake. Then you went after me in templating me as a vandal. FWiW, I left you messages on your talk page, you left me warnings and vandalism templates. Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
Oh right. I posted a delete notice and an own notice on your talk page, which you should make yourself familiar with them, which you then fully deleted, for the sake of what, explain that? Another user notifies you by using WP standard warning template and you revert and then act like the boss on that user's talk page, yeah that's being WP:CIVIL alright. Have I reverted your edits on my talk page? User:Emerson7 simply went and changed all the bare refs to cite web/news, etc. as is done in many other articles and even by bots, but what do you do? You claim WP:OWN entirely revert his edits, and not even bother to explain in an inconspicuous edit summary. And then when I undo you edit to change them back you get all defensive and state: "Read the edit history of the article; I am the primary editor, the other editor changed the style of my edits to his preference." If that's not a WP:OWN violation I don't know what is. El Greco(talk) 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think these guys will sit here talking to each other before they notice no one else is joinig in because they can't get a word in edgewise? --barneca (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD, guys. Bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, go to ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI... I have set up a section on the talk page just for you: Talk:Howard Hughes#Citation style. If discussion doesn't work out, check out WP:DR. Problem solved, quite Solomon-like I think. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to explain the reason for the edit in the edit summary and then sent you a note as you had concerns, your reaction was to template me with vandal tags which is not conducive to discussion. Read the edit history, the edits made introduced some correct changes but also introduced errors in consistency by using ISO dating which is inherent in a cite template. I tried to rewrite the template but it didn't work, and that is why the citations were written out in "scratch" cataloging to preserve the exact wording. No edits were reverted, they were changed, that is the difference. I do not revert edits unless there is a clear case of vandalism. I was about to leave the edits as is but then noted that there were tiny errors throughout the entire passage and changed these, then made it all consistent. I began the revision of this article when it underwent attacks, at that time, due to the numerous editors involved, a style was selected that was established by the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group for consistency. Although Howard Hughes is an international figure with many different interests, the project style that was used was a consistent one. Cite templates are rife with small errors and in correcting the ISO dating, it was not possible to change the date style to meet the standard already in the article, so it was rewritten not reverted. All the information that was presented earlier was retained and put back in the same manner that the cite template would have presented it. You are reading something into this article revision that just isn't there. I am not a vandal, I do not change edits arbitrarily and I do not like being treated like a vandal. FWiW, Sorry for even getting involved in this discourse, it is illogical and idiotic of me to get baited like this. Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
They are not vandal tags. They are warning tags, understand that. If you want vandal tags go here: {{uw-vandalism}}. Well then take up your comments about the cite templates on their talk page. And if you're going to refuse to use a cite template because of bad date formatting, that's a weak reason and/or excuse. I've never seen anyone revert a user's edits for replacing bare refs with cite templates. El Greco(talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What you have here is a content/style dispute, with civility and Wikiquette overtones. As far as I can tell, neither of you has asked for any administrator action and I can think of none that would be necessary. WP:AN is not a step in dispute resolution and I would advise both of you to go to WP:DR like barneca suggested. Alternatively, you can keep going along the road you're going until you do need admin action, which will probably end up falling on both of you. (Incidentally, I would advise El Greco to read WP:DTTR, while I also advise Bzuk to realise that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook[edit]

Resolved

According to Help:Moving a page, if there is an issue with moving an article over a redirect page, then an administrator should be contacted, which is what I'm doing now. Anyway, I'm attempting to move Aaron Cook (baseball) back to its original form of just Aaron Cook (and then add proper disambig tags afterwards), but it appears as if Aaron Cook is simply a redirect page to Aaron Cook (taekwondo athlete), which was part of a move that I previously made. I probably made a mistake, which is why I'm obviously seeking admin help. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook has been deleted, so you should be good to go. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim is asking for a review of his block[edit]

AdultSwim, recently revealed and blocked as a sockpuppet of Lemmey / Mitrebox has asked for a review of his block: User talk:AdultSwim#Blocked. I would've suggested he do so from the original account, but it seems to have been given the {{pp-usertalk}} treatment. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Banned Constant evasive socking, keep him blocked and block on sight. MBisanz talk 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Socking, yes. But to be fair, have a read over Ned Scott's summary of the situation on the user's talk page. I wouldn't disagree with it. Mitrebox/Lemmey/AdultSwim has never done anything to attempt to harm the encycolopedia. The aim has always seemed to be in good faith, but not within our procedural bounds. The user has the potential for a future of valuable contributions. Needs a nice tutor. Keegantalk 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock I agree with Ned Scott. What's keeping AdultSwim away is basically policy-wonkery. He's a clear positive for the encyclopedia, IMO. What's keeping him out is a technicality. Unblock provided he promises not to sock anymore or to use unapproved bots. Enigma message 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A second account I can understand. Perhaps even a third. But five or six accounts indicates a real issue. I'd be incredibly hesitant to unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That does have me confused as well. Some of them seem just.. odd. Like LemmonBoy, who's obvious connection wouldn't even make the account useful for sockpuppeting or block evasion. Some of the others were only used for a single day and thrown away. Still, I don't see any attempt to have one sock support another in discussion, nor do I see any real disruption by most of those throw-away's. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In regards to User talk:Mitrebox being protected, he was clearly told that he needed to contact ArbCom or the blocking administrator via email and had already had a block declined on his talk page. He chose not to, and instead went ahead and created another account to circumvent his block, and then continued to do so even after being caught a third time. Does not seem like the type of user I want editing... Tiptoety talk 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if he's the kind of editor we can even stop editing. Wouldn't it be better to at least try to work these issues out, rather than endless sock hunts? He keeps coming back because he honestly believes he's doing something good here, and desires to keep doing that. I understand some socks coming into edit war over a POV, but never to come in and fix references.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So by all means just let him stay unblocked? If you can not beat them, then let them edit? I think not, Tiptoety talk 07:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have someone who passionately wants to contribute and is improving the wiki. Where is the logic in fighting that? Their "crime" was running an unapproved bot, an issue long since resolved. Threads like these are likely the reason he didn't bother with an unblock request for the original account. People get so hung up on what you've once done that they just close their mind to the possibility that someone might be good for this project. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In other words, from a technical standpoint, we can stop them, even if it means reverting after we catch a new sock. However, most people aren't going to want to revert the changes he makes, and it would be really counter-productive. We would be reverting good edits simply because he was once banned for something that is no longer an issue. We can help the situation with things other than blocks. We've not big stupid cavemen who can only hit things with their clubs. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked The value of anyone who abuses sock puppets is questionable. Jtrainor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an incredibly shallow view of the situation. This editor has been proven to be very valuable to the project, and has never once tried to hurt it. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked Simply because the accounts we know of haven't harmed the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that he hasn't done so. We don't if it's a good hands/bad hands scenario here. I just don't trust serial sockpuppeters. He was told what to do. He should be able to show he wants to be here enough that he would actually do what people asked him to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, are you even paying attention? There's no good hand/bad hand happening here at all. He's already stop using an unapproved bot, so there's no reason his original account should even be blocked at this point, other than the evasion of that original block. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A checkuser was run, showed his accounts, and none of them were abusive, IIRC. This is a good contributor. No "bad hand" exists. I really don't understand how you could say this. "We don't know if it's a good hands/bad hands..."? Actually, we know more about him than others because a checkuser was run. Your argument of we don't know could apply to everyone, including you or me. Enigma message 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked. I want to see him not sockpuppet for three months before I support an unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock and find a mentor. ViridaeTalk 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC)Even though I'm a Pro-Block Admin™, I support an unblock in this particular case. Yes, he socked, but was it malicious? Did he harm the encyclopedia? Did he attack someone? Three NO's, right? Then probably we shouldn't consider the block on his first account as permission to shoot on sight, and give him a benefit of doubt? I support unblocking AS, or probably his Lemmey account and his bot that was certainly useful. If there are still some problems with AS's behaviour, assinging him a mentor would be really more constructive than ritual "bad, bad sock" banhammering to death. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but I concur heavily with MaxSem said above...Someone who have contributed for good of Wikipeida and hitherto done/does no harm, should not be demoralized by a indefinite block...Just my 2 cents -- Tinu Cherian - 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock, it seems as though the user is essentially constructive and a net positive. Prohibit any further use of sockpuppets by him. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional unblock, the user needs to get a mentor and restrict himself to two accounts (one that doesn't do anything automatic, one that does (semi-)automated things with community approval). We do have stricter norms for bots than for non-automatic contributions (and for good reason), and the user has to accept that or we'll have to do without him. Kusma (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment just to say that I have noticed this user doing an extraordinary amount of helpful work with referencing on a wide range of articles lately. Skomorokh 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock. If its true he is a net positive, I see no reason we cannot allow him to edit. He needs guidance apparently, like others are pointing out. If this cannot be accomplished, then reblock. Synergy 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked He has clearly demonstrated recently that he was still incapable of understanding the etiquette issue of editing other people's sandboxes, issues that contributed to his original block in February. Until he can demonstrate he understanbds why he was blocked, there is no point in leaving him unblocked. Circeus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed that is only an etiquette issue, not a violation of any policy or guideline. In fact with every edit, users are given a no-nonsense warning to the opposite effect: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I'm not convinced this is actionable (though other behavior might be). — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per most of the above, I think, at this point an unblock would be a good idea, along with a mentor. SQLQuery me! 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I would like to be sure that any future bots this user is to run seek explicit approval before they are run as a condition of unblock. I remember now, that this user, appeared to think there was nothing wrong with running an unapproved bot, in order to lock a page at a specific revision. [7] Having dealt with this user in two out of three of his most recent socks, I don't think this is going to happen, however. SQLQuery me! 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Unblock Synergy took the words out of my mouth. Per Synergy. RgoodermoteNot an admin  14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on previous interaction, I'll say I'm somewhat skeptical that this user is going to be open to mentoring; but due to the fact they are trying to be of use, I'd support one more shot, based on the conditions above by Kusma and SQL. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I can almost guarantee that this user will not be open to mentoring, just look at the way he handled a request to have his username changed. He is not open to help, and more or less wants to do things his way or no way at all. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock I see no major reason to leave the account indefinitely blocked, and in addition, the user is not community banned (at least, there is no discussion of a banning that I am aware of). Good arguments have been provided to unblock, and I agree with them. Give the user guidance and another chance: I've only seen good things from the AdultSwim account, and I was surprised to see it blocked. Acalamari 17:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Might I just add that this user has adamantly stated and thinks that there is nothing wrong with running a unapproved bot, what makes everyone think he is going to change? Tiptoety talk 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet he's also stated that he's willing to follow our rules and improve how he handles these situations. Feeling that there is nothing wrong with the action isn't a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but acting upon those feelings is. Tiptoety talk 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Which he has not done. The only thing even close would be the block of Samuel, where he explains that he thought it was approved because it was the same task and code that was approved before. (see User talk:Samuel Pepys#WTF Mate)-- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked. Unrepentant block-evading sockpuppeteer, come back when he has fixed those issues and shown a commitment to fix the other issues which led to the original block as well. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A prime example of a drive-by admin who isn't paying attention to the discussion. He has already fixed the issues related to the original block. He has no other issues that would justify a block, and is only currently blocked because he didn't get his first account unblocked. Process wonkery caused by ignorant admins. Get off the damn war path, because you're not helping the wiki. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, that last part was a bit over the top. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked. As someonewho tried to cleanup the trail of destruction User:Samuel Pepys (who, lest we forget, returned as a sockpuppet to operate the bot which had already been blocked)left behind, I have no sympathy at all for this "good faith user's" ability to change. – iridescent 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've spot checked a bunch of Samuel's edits, and none of them so far have been bad. What edits are you referring to when you say "trail of destruction"? -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I seem to have found it. Seems he was editing user drafts, commenting out the ref tag to remove the page from the maintenance category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. From the comments on the talk page it seems he was able to update the bot to exclude user pages, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The bot itself was very useful, and that same code will likely be run again by someone, if not Lemmey/AS. Again, the only reason for the block of the bot is because of the ban evasion of the original account, which is now a non-issue. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave blocked - He may be constructive, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. In addition to the original block for edit warring using a bot, LemmeyBOT was blocked twice for running unapproved tasks and AdultSwim was blocked for incivility, while I supported the unblock for that last block, his responses after being unblocked were less than encouraging. The fact that AdultSwim was created 2 years ago but only made a handful of edits before June is a bit worrying as well. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are some very weak reasons to block someone indefinitely like this. If his bot was acting up, it gets the bot status removed. Problem solved. You just said yourself that there's no current reason to block AdultSwim for civility reasons. I've been blocked for civility-type reasons before, and I would hate to think you would endorse my banishment from the entire English Wikipedia for being human. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Basically what I meant was, he does have positive contributions, but he can't seem to go very long without ending up in some degree of trouble. Incivility is one thing, but there's also the edit warring bot, the unapproved bots, the sock puppetry, the fact that this last account looks like a sleeper account. I don't think the positive contributions he makes are worth all the extra trouble. The AGF view says that he's just a good editor with a complete inability to follow rules for more than a month or 2, but after so many block-evading sockpuppets, I'm not really able to AGF anymore, it looks like he's just trying to see how much he can get away with. Mr.Z-man 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that the behavior you cite has been shown and proven to improve over time. The very first block was for an unapproved revert bot. The next time he ran a bot he waited to get approval from BAG, worked with them, and was highly praised for the bot's work. Same with the edit warring. Like AS has said on his talk page, each time he comes back he makes a greater effort to improve, or as he puts it, each new account evolves and improves (or something like that). The last time we had a thread about him it was over a situation that he had already resolved with the other user. He had gotten blocked with the mindset that he might have caused that user great distress, and yet that same user came here to support his unblocking. I don't think it's fair to use something like that against him. The only issue that is continuing without "improvement" is the new accounts, which he's only making so that he can continue his positive contributions. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I never saw any of the constructive contributions Lemmey is said to have made. I only saw the contributions to ANI and related noticeboards, which while short of being disruptive or incivil were certainly confrontational and impolite. So, I don't think this is a simple case of a good-user-who-fell-foul-of-bot-and-then-sock-policy, and if unblocked I hope that any mentor would be aware of such concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock I noticed that I've only been replying to comments, and haven't gotten to make my own shiny bold endorsement. Unblock per my statement on AS's talk page, and per my above comments. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No unblock I might be able to forgive the other stuff, but not being a Checkuser-confirmed sock of a user who posted someone's personal information. Blueboy96 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A mistake they made over two years ago. Do you have any evidence of postings of personal information since then? Any at all? -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:East718, the original blocking admin, if he would be willing to review the first block. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

East (I think it's East.. he seems to be on a script enforced block) replies. He says he supports an unblock, but advises us to wait a couple of weeks so that people can calm down. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. So he used multiple accounts. So what? Seems to be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Unblock and let him go on about his business here. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AdultSwim[edit]

Found here: User talk:AdultSwim#Response. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We saw that same type of bullshit when Mitrebox got caught running a reversion bot. I see no indication he's changed, nor any indication of an apology for his actions, which he doesn't seem to even acknowledge were wrong. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is far more than just a "Oh, I was blocked for using a unapproved bot, so whats the big deal if I sock?". Just look at this users history, he has had two years to improve his behavior and yet here we are again. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Nwwaew, how about the fact that he never used a reversion bot after that? The next bot he used got full approval by BAG, and has been praised by several good editors in standing. That's a pretty damn good improvement. Tiptoety, your statement is even more absurd. You say he's had two years to improve his behavior, except that this current block has nothing to do with behavior. This is entirely dependent on block evasion of a block that is no longer an issue. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That's because we had no idea he was a sock. And I'll bet that he's probably going to be socking in the future. I will not support an unblock until he apologizes for everything he's done, admits that it was wrong, and then can prove he hasn't socked for three months. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible for anyone to prove that they have not been operating sockpuppets. Can you prove that you have not been operating socks? If you can't maybe you should be blocked too. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do operate a sockpuppet. Though, after looking over what I said, I agree- there's no way to completely confirm non-socking. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what was going on with the multiple accounts that were editing at the same time, but I would doubt he would make another account if he didn't need to (as in, making one so he could keep editing). The ones that were editing at the same time never crossed paths, and some were one-time use accounts (like LemmonBoy, who's existence was to simply post code for the bot). He's not creating accounts to support himself in a discussion, or to do some kind of good hand/bad hand front. If he's unblocked, which wouldn't hurt the wiki or the community at all, then he wouldn't need to make more accounts. Problem solved. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Asking people to prove they haven't done something is absurd, as I was saying above. Someone opposed unblocking because (paraphrase) "we don't know if there's a good hand/bad hand thing going on here." Well yeah, we don't. We also don't know if <insert random user here> is operating good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry. I view AS's sockpuppetry differently than I would someone who is operating multiple sockpuppets at the same time to try to sway consensus or disrupt in some other significant way. Anyway, east commented on his talk page. Enigma message 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I got here late... Can someone explain to me just how he was "caught"? If there were no problems with him under the current account, why was anyone even looking? We tell people - even banned editors sometimes (though usually in those cases it's only brought up by their enemies in order to attempt to subvert an attempt to appeal the ban) that it's fine to come back and start editing again as long as they don't go back to the same bad behavior that got them blocked/banned. So what the hell? Maybe I'm just dense - I go to the talk page and see a sock template posted out of the blue with no evidence of any prior controversy. --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I gave a shot at summarizing it on User talk:AdultSwim#Block summary, though I should point out that I'm supporting an unblock. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange set of sockpuppets[edit]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Undercovergals, seems to have an obsession with feet, which rings a bell somehow. Anybody know of a sockpuppeteer that fits that profile? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Seasideplace had an obsession with bare feet, but it doesn't quite fit. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, probably who I'm thinking of. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Ceiling Cat[edit]

Resolved: Let's see...TenOfAllTrades nailed the underlying issue...No one is going to block Ceiling Cat...SandyGeorgia, nobody blocked Raul, that's an old block from before he usurped it...Guy and Duncan, relax guys...Did I cover all the main stuff? --barneca (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think so, thanks :-) I was so busy looking for a pet gorilla that I didn't read the block carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A user, Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Can someone delete her user-subpages that she created? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr.... am I missing something here. Apparently this is a legit sock of User:Raul654 Pedro :  Chat  11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be unblocked. He spammed only people he knows on IRC (e.g. Cream) or people he's associated with on-wiki (Sandy). Sceptre (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification, Sceptre (note, Sandy does not do IRC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The account was blocked in 2006, but it's missing it's unblock log. Given that Raul has used it since, the account is certainly unblocked. From what I remember, Raul usurped it before the time block logs moved, so this is the block log from the old account holder. When the account was usurped, the new account name will have been automatically unblocked. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that it doesn't show up in the block log though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that account is treating this site like MySpace (WP:NOT#MYSPACE), I don't see many actual article contributions to the enyclopedia. If it is a legit sock, it should be used constructively. I don't see anything constructive about that account. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly account, it's not hurting anyone, and it's rather amusing. Let's just leave Raul654 to whatever cat-related-humor he likes, eh? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We usually do block such accounts which behave in this way. I hope this account is not going to be treated differently just because it is operated by Raul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we? It seems accounts like Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs) have been here quite some time. - auburnpilot talk 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'll rephrase, we usually block such accounts when they aren't operated by popular or influential editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. - auburnpilot talk 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


(ec)We usually block such accounts when they're created by editors who don't show any sign of wanting to contribute to the project. Generally, we grant more leeway to people who have voluntarily given hundreds or thousands of largely thankless free hours to working on the encyclopedia. If 99% of what Raul654 does here is constructive work to mantain and build this project, I'm not going to begrudge him the 1% of the time he spends on somewhat silly things that don't cause anyone any harm.
It's right there in the userpage policy:
The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.
Until such time as the account's activities become genuinely disruptive, there's no need to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Raul had put the cat jokes on his own userpage would we even be having this conversation? Yes we don't akkow peopel to use Wikipedia as Myspace but we do allow editors a bit of fun if it does no harm. And Raul is an editor is he not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I personally don't care what Raul does with his Cat account. It doesn't seem particularly disruptive or harmful to me, and I'd just as soon close this thread and move on. It's a running joke, which I believe started on Talk:Main Page (at least that's where I first saw it).- auburnpilot talk 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen loads of accounts with similar edit histories blocked before. I'm not saying it should be blocked, but rather that double standards don't contribute to a positive atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I only remember seeing editors with similar edit histories getting blocked (I might be wrong though, but I'd be disappointed if we did that). I really can't care less if editors create a secondary account for a joke, as long as it's not breaking any rule. Maybe someone could raise his concerns to Raul on the use of this sock, if they feel the need. (I can't believe I'm wasting my coffee break talking about this :)) -- lucasbfr talk 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There's not a double standard. Editors who primarily work to build the encyclopedia (like Raul654) are allowed to use (very small amounts of) project resources to have a little bit of harmless fun. People who come here to use us as a free webhost or MySpace substitute without any apparent intent to contribute to the encyclopedia are offered the choice to contribute or leave.
This is no different from the way things work in the offline world. If you're in the office and you take a fifteen minute coffee break in the afternoon to chat with the guy in the next cubicle before you go back to work, it's no problem. If you spend all day every day playing solitaire, drinking coffee, and wandering about the office having conversations, you're going to be asked to pack up your stuff and leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at first, I didn't even realise it was Raul, I just seen that account make an edit to a userpage that's on my watchlist with the edit description "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ"; which made me think an obvious troll (not saying it is a troll, but that's what it seemed like to me at first). Then checking the contributions, it seemed to me that it was created numerous subpages for no reason. The accounts that AubornPilot pointed out earlier, Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs), actually all seem constructive, so there is no problem there, they are there to help with the encyclopedia, I don't see constructive with Ceiling Cat. Also someone called it a "silly account" - if any other account was caught doing that, a block indef would probably be coming their way. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I have accumulated a list of all the people that care, but unfortunately it was deleted as WP:CSD#A3... Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Slow day at the office Guy? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not especially. Why? Guy (Help!) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's jolly decent that you can edit Wikipedia at work. More employers should support voluntary work by their staff. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Want some vinegar for that chip? Or is your naturally acidic personality sufficient? Guy (Help!) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least I don't falsify deletion debates when closing them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough of that please.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ban of the cat. He's been...watching me. Friday (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness sakes, what is Wiki coming to when I don't even realize Raul's cat left me a message, because someone else reverted the message, and I have to find out about it on WP:AN? What's next, do I have to step back through all the diffs on my talk page to find out when friends have left me fun messages? I can't believe someone blocked Raul's cat: is Bish next? We need to add a big cluestick to admin school, including some basic Wiki history. I think I feel a sock account coming on; I'm starting to feel left out without an animal account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait. Why wasn't my talk vandalized? This account is clearly biased and needs to be blocked. /end joke. Synergy 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the Maggot here, seriously, this Cat is too biased. At the very least, it needs to have a session with Therapist Cat... Lucifer (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
ApprovedI concur with the diagnosis. Synergy 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this thread closed? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I come across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I came here to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was Raul's "cat" until someone mentioned it in this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We understand that :-) You did the right thing, but there is nothing more to do now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Clarified in the blog log [8].--chaser - t 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Treat him like anyone else and block the account. Accounts that don't exist to improve the encyclopedia and merely indulge in foolishness should be blocked, and the user should be warned on his or her main account to refrain from such behavior in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<- While I'm sure Raul's done more than enough to be allowed some indulgence, let's be at least a little serious here for a second. What's a new user meant to think, and indeed do, when she sees Raul's MOAR KATS efforts on the Main_Talk page? You've many friends in the project and therefore many, many talk pages on which to share the 4chan humour that will not cause confusion. Could you perhaps limit your self expression to just those situations which don't have the huge potential to confuse the newbies, Raul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.166.245 (talkcontribs)

lol -Pilotguy contact tower 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to view a deleted article[edit]

Resolved

could someone here enable me to view the deleted article "List of Deus Ex machina examples" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deus_ex_machina_examples_%282nd_nomination%29

--Ted-m (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to it--I just restored the article for review >.< --jonny-mt 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've redeleted it under both CSD G1/A1 and common sense. We don't maintain blank pages in articlespace so non-admins can casually look over the history. If someone wants the content they can have it emailed to them. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A fine idea when they have e-mail enabled--when they don't, it's kind of difficult. Leaving a blank, orphaned page in userspace for a short while seemed like a good compromise, but if you're in a rush, then you're in a rush! --jonny-mt 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost AfD[edit]

Resolved: mandatory short wikibreak/nap

Can anyone find the log that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts is currently in? I relisted it, then went to comment it out of the old log and add it to the new one - and I can't find it. It shows that it started on July 30, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old it's listed under the 29th... and I can't find it in either. Maybe I'm too tired. Tan ǀ 39 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it is currently #3 on the 29th listing, but of course that may change. It occurred to me that maybe it just didn't get listed in the logs and DumBot dropped the ball... but then why would it be listed on /old at all? Weird... Tan ǀ 39 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Found it, I'm too tired. See y'all in the morning ;-) Tan ǀ 39 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, just do a whatlinkshere search for the AFD and you'll see that it's now at August 6th. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I moved it there after I found it. But you have a good point; use the "what links here" function. Thanks! Tan ǀ 39 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce#Notes[edit]

There seems to be an error in formatting here. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – am I missing something? – iridescent 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone else rv the vandalism here. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:S.C.Ruffeyfan[edit]

User:S.C.Ruffeyfan is self-identifying as a minor. Is the information on his User page sufficiently vague, or should it be removed? Corvus cornixtalk 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty vague, I don't see much harm there. I'll leave him a note. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If this is an issue, then perhaps we need to look at userboxes like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education#Students by schooling level. I think there are some age userboxes as well. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


New spammer[edit]

Various IP users have been editing the articles of corporate managers, adding the phrase "(name of article) is one of the best paid managers" and a link to a website. (Example diff: [9]) This has been reverted and blocked, but different IPs, all from Qwest Communications Denver, continue it. Maybe the link could be put on the spam blacklist? It's http://www.neumann-compensation.com/managers/salary/firstname-lastname. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other IPs were doing the same a few days ago. This one's be blocked and had all his edits reverted. Please report any more you find. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?[edit]

Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ABN Amro. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as LaSalle Bank. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. Minkythecat (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO according to the kamer van koophandel, but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on WP:MOSTM and WP:UCN. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank. That's why I raised my objections later. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in Talk:ABN AMRO as there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Wikipedia through editwars. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, it isn't a critical issue. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --barneca (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the Bank of America and LaSalle Bank articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Smyth we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that User:gidonb, and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --barneca (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy volunteered that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to WP:COI as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. Ronnotel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[ec] It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming WP:COI on the name because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, WP:BRD - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be wrong just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. Ronnotel (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it after discussion. And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If User:gidonb had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content much at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. Keeper ǀ 76 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my favourite corporate organization wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some blockheads insist that it be known as Lego instead. OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in... However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's self-evident that almost any edit-war over whether a particular phrase should use capitals or minuscule type is WP:LAME, and yet with one disagreement that I'm involved in, I do wonder if some of our otherwise diligent editors ever read WP:MOSCAPS as applying to their particular walled garden. For me, common sense says that if the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines don't say that corporations known by all-caps versions should be in all caps, then it is the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines that are wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the following in Talk:ABN AMRO. This dispute is getting to be almost as long as the "The/the Beatles" dispute which flares up occasionally in Talk:The Beatles. The difference is that in the Beatle dispute (note that I'm using this as an adjective, not a noun), it split the Beatle Wikipedia community down the middle with absolutely no consensus. The noun "The Beatles" continues to prevail in all Wikipedia article related to The Beatles. The difference in this dispute is that all parties familiar with ABN AMRO as a financial institution are united in using that company's legal name in all-capital letters. The opponents--let me break for a moment to say that the term anal retentive is not supposed to be an insult but fits perfectly the behavior of obsessive "by the book" editors who follow the Wikipedia MOS as a Holy Bible not to be questioned--are not familiar with ABN AMRO at all but wish to impose their naming conventions on everything else despite what they call themselves. When this editor reported the ABN AMRO editing dispute in the Administrators' Notebook, the ABN AMRO article name was restored and subsequently locked with nearly all the ABN AMRO references in all-caps restored. That's because a key administrator who locked the article happens to have ABN AMRO as a client in his day job. I've requested a re-evaulation of the MOS in cases like this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College[edit]

I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on Bramson ORT College since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? Corvus cornixtalk 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:Spam blacklist. Specifically, on m:Spam blacklist. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. Sasquatch t|c 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{db-copyvio}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. Corvus cornixtalk 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by User:Alansohn. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. Corvus cornixtalk 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the WP:COPYVIO claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Wikipedia, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per WP:COPYVIO, a revert to a previous version should only be done if "all [emphasis in original] of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. Corvus cornixtalk 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Wikipedia. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the Bramson ORT College article is not evidence of a WP:COPYVIO. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per WP:EL. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from here, I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Internet Archive, it looks like they copied from us. The content in question appeared in Wikipedia on January 17, 2007, while the Internet Archive copies for January 9, 2007, and January 24, 2007 do not have this content. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM's indefinite protections[edit]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a number of indefinite protections currently in place. In light of his inactivity, they should probably be reviewed and either evaluated individually or mass unprotected (and let RFPP sort it out). Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just review them and unprotect where necessary - Don't just mass unprotect them. Look at each article and review it on its own merits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with an individual review is that CSCWEM has never set an expiry on hundreds of protections, dating back months to years. I'm not sure an individual review is really feasible. - auburnpilot talk 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There often wasn't much rationale given. For example 01:20, June 12, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) protected T-Pain ‎ (libel concerns [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]). –xeno (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't mass unprotect them without looking at each one. To save any duplication of work, I believe I've already sorted out all his protections of IP talk pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The above mentioned one seems to be a result of typical (albeit persistent) school-boy vandalism. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask admins reviewing these protections, that, if they decide protection is still necessary, that they unprotect and then reprotect, with a rationale. This will ensure that editors will know why an article is protected, and that an active admin is listed as having done the protection. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, anything that's been semi'd for more than a year, and probably even more than say, 6 months, should be unprotected and no review would really be necessary. Am I wrong? –xeno (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm indifferent toward other pages, I do agree that articles should almost never be protected forever. However, before rushing to judgment, consider that the majority of these were probably protected prior to the new feature which allows an expiration date to be set, and/or before CSCWEM was aware of this feature. — CharlotteWebb 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help a little bit there. The expiry date feature debuted last April (so April 2007), so yes they were after that. I'm sure he was aware of the feature (an extra box on the protection page gets your attention), but I don't believe he ever used it (ever, I can't tell you why). So, the majority were done after expiry dates were added. -Royalguard11(T) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
An examination of the older IP talk protections leaves little doubt about this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with CharlotteWebb. I am hesitant to do a mass unprotect, but suggest that it be taken one article at a time. There are likely a few legitimate protections in there, to start; as well, if they've been on some form of protection for an extended period without complaint, then there is no rush to unprotect without a thorough review. I am willing to work on some of these starting later this evening. Risker (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as we start looking into these, now that he isn't around to answer queries. –xeno (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least one page on my watchlist which has been indef-protected for eight months now, after going through *ten* separate protect/unprotect cycles in an 11 month period last year, and another that has been unprotected for a total of about five days since March 2007, for extreme BLP violations. If you are unprotecting a page, make sure that it's not a vandalism magnet. I know this would appear to be common-sense advice, but sometimes, the rush to unprotect everything overrides common sense, and it's why each page needs to be judged by a human, individually, rather than mass-reverted by an automated process. Horologium (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started reviewing his protection log starting with 1/1/08 and moving forward from there. While several of the articles I've encountered thusfar are heavily trafficked, and at least one was the target of a dedicated vandal, I haven't seen enough to justify indefinite semi-protection. I'm going to watchlist the more high-risk articles, just to monitor them for scurrilous activity. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
While I won't name the pages (