Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Needed: USB turntable in UK.[edit]

Long story short: I have two records, provably Public domain in both Britain and the US, that I'd like to have transferred for use on Wikipedia. One is a selection of opera recordings, the other the 1936 D'Oyly Carte Mikado. [Long story short: EU copyright law says that sound recordings enter the public domain 50 years after recording; These are from well before 1946, so they are out of copyright, even with the Uruguay Round Table Agreements making things annoying for US copyright for things in copyright after 1996.]

If anyone has a USB turntable, and lives in the UK (I'd rather not trust international mail), please contact me on my talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, try Craigslist or eBay? This really isn't the appropriate venue in any sense.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody said the T-word or the FU-words--why call this inappropriate? Steveozone (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't afford to buy one right now. I'm busy trying to improve the encyclopedia. That's why I want to mail someone the records. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I might be able to help. I've sent you an email. Leithp 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested as to what the T and FU words are. :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In the play "The Odd Couple", "FU" meant "Felix Unger" -- although Oscar initially misunderstood the meaning of the abbreviation. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cognition requesting unblock[edit]

Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is requesting an unblock. They had a pretty long rapsheet, but were indeffed back in May, 2006 based on multiple civility problems and repeated violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. I have no background on the case, but am bringing it here for further discussion by anyone who may know whether or not this is a good idea. I am inclined to support an unblock at this time, especially if there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or dodging his initial block; 3 years may be enough to have learned his lessons. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks like a reasonable unblock to me. You'll keep an eye out I'm sure... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Any unblock must be done with the topic ban in place. It would be crucial the someone ensure that he stays away from people he's had bad interactions with in the past. Note that one of the suspected socks (I'd like more details on how that was determined) was in Jan 2008. So it that's true, s/he hasn't simply been quiet for the last three years.

    I remember Cognition as a troublesome and uncivil editor. What reason do we have to believe that he's changed? Guettarda (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Three years and no sockpuppets found? Other than "where have they been?" I see no reason why an unblock cannot be done - as with another case, if the good faith of the community is abused then reblocking is a simple solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Cognition was one of the most extreme LaRouche editors we've seen, or could even imagine. He said British philosopher Bertrand Russell was planning a genocide, and the Queen was the "whore of Babylon." [1] Please read his magnificent statement to the ArbCom. It's odd that he'd want an unblock, rather than just creating a new account, which no one would notice if he behaved, so this sounds like drama-mongering. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion on ANI regarding the blocking of User:The Noosphere in January 2008. [2] His other three accounts made few edits and were active immediately before he registered his main account. Compared to another person who edits in the same topic and has created dozens of socks (WP:LTA/HK), Cognition hasn't been a major puppet master. Regarding an unblock, has he said that he's learned his lesson? Since he was blocked for gross incivility, it'd be appropriate for him to return under a civility probation and/or mentorship, should he be unblocked.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Dang, he was right about about the world economy's being on the brink of collapse, though. Deor (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As SlimVirgin implies above, there was a long-running dispute over attacks on living people on Cognition's user page, which he was using as a soapbox in violation of an ArbCom remedy. See this version: [3] Cognition did not seem to accept the idea that this is intended to be a neutral encylopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah - I forgot about that lovely collection of his. Of course that was, iirc, before the BLP policy existed, so it was harder to deal with problems like that. He didn't "get" Wikipedia back in those days. At the very least I'd like to see some indication that he "gets" it now. Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Prayware[edit]

Someone delete or afd this, it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. 86.136.203.27 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayware 87.113.26.43 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Advice[edit]

I'm seeking advice on an article. The video game Dissidia Final Fantasy has seen frequent edit warring in the past due to the English voice actors. The Japanese voice actors are directly named in the game itself in the credits, but the English version of the game isn't going to be released until August. Until then, trailers and gameplay clips are being released, and that's where the problem has begun.

To date, only two English voice actors have been confirmed in print, and those are sourced. Various other characters can be heard in the trailers, and in the community and forums and such, their VA's have largely been identified by ear. But, they haven't been identified any other way - so far, none of the other VAs except the sourced ones have a reliable, written source identifying them, but the article has repeatedly suffered vandalism as registered and anon users alike add unsourced claims to the article regarding VAs. At times I was removing such unsubstantiated infor on a daily basis, but the page is currently protected.

Now, in a few days the protection will expire, and I will go on the record to promise the anon vandalism will begin right where it left off. In the meantime, as arguments on the article's talk page will show, everyone is intent to add the VA information back to the article with no source but for the users recognizing the voices by ear. Short of permanent protection from all editing until the game comes out I can't think of anything to stop these sorts of edits, but I really don't want it to come to that, especially since with the game nearing release we likely will get reliable sources for VAs soon. So....what can be done? The Clawed One (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep protection going, warn everyone about WP:OR and start blocking if they keep it up? Realistically, perhaps add an comment in the section saying "do no add voice actors based on mere speculation, i.e. without a source. It will be reverted and considered vandalism. Repeating it may result in a loss of editing privileges." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I've said "source it" repeatedly in edit summaries and on the talk page. The general reply to such on the talk page seems to be "but listen to the voice, that's so obviously him!", at which point I just feel like slapping someone. But thank you for the advice, I'll keep the reverting, and will get ready for the third protection request. The Clawed One (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Put the hidden comments on the page. Make it clear there. That might stop some people and those it doesn't stop will definitely be on a shorter leash. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Now, I say do it in a way that they can't not see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks appropriate for use of an editnotice. Let me know if you need help. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I shouldn't have taken this back from the Archives, but there's another side to the problem. Not only is the Dissidia page being vandalized in this manner, but many pages for the characters and the VA supposedly voicing them are being similarly edited. Am I just gonna have to watch two dozen pages now, or is there something else that can be done? The Clawed One (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

we can easily protect all of them till the film is released later this summer, after which this will become moot. DGG (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, protecting two dozen pages seems a bit drastic. Also, it's a video game, not a film. But yes, it comes out at the end of August and then this will all be over. Until then... The Clawed One (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want them protected, I'll do the work. Let me know.DGG (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus[edit]

I am reporting user:Hobartimus for either some kind of nationalist bias or harassment of other users. I (initially as an IP, I have created an account now) have fixed an important legal mistake in two articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria%E2%80%93Hungary&diff=300580727&oldid=300338411 and Kingdom of Hungary, talk:Kingdom of Hungary) and have even provided the text of the law in question, in which everybody can verify for himself that the law did not apply to Hungary. While user Hobbartimus seems to have recognized his mistake in the Kingdom of Hungary article (where the mistake was located in a footnote), he keeps reverting this in the Austria-Hungary article (where the mistake is the main text). In the Austria-Hungary article, I have also added "fact" tags, because the whole paragraph in question is IMHO nationalist POV - it should be deleted, but provision of sources would be acceptable as a last resort (so that anyone can see, who claims these things). I do not understand, why it is allowed to delete such tags, and why such tags exist then in the first place, when they can be deleted. In sum, the user exhibits a completely (or deliberately) irrational behaviour, I do not know how to deal with such people. I hope someone can help here. Thanks. Pantotenate (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to get consensus on your side in the article talk pages, and accept whatever consensus develops there - this appears to be a textbook case of a content dispute. Collect (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I have not been clear enough: The law in question , right in its first sentence, lists the countries for which it is valid, the country called Hungary is not included there (this is a standard case for almost laws adopted in Vienna in Austria-Hungary). The user keeps reverting both this simple fact and the source - i.e. the text of the law - I have added. Where is the content dispute? What exactly am I supposed to discuss here? Whether he is able to identify the countries listed in the law text? This is vandalism. I have also addessed him on the Kingdom of Hungary talk page, where he did not react and corrected the SAME error as discussed here (because there - unlike here - it was just a footnote which nobody can see). In addition he has deleted the fact tags I have added. Is that allowed? I suppose no... A content dispute would be, if there was some issue of interpretation or ideology or competing sources, but there is definitely no such problem here. Am I supposed to cite the whole introductory sentence of the text of the law in the article or what (although that would be ridiculous)? Pantotenate (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of HanzoHattori continued if illegal editing[edit]

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) was permmbanned in Feb 2008. Since then, he has created several socks, and seems to keep returning to Wikipedia; there is no indication that he will ever stop. His newest sock, User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji, was just discovered and banned today (although I cannot seem to find the CU request/evidence page...?). Yet I am not posting to complain about futile attempts to keep him away; instead I am posting here in order to request the review of the permban on him. Long story short, it appears to me upon a cursory review that his socks have been performing constructive, not disruptive edits; none of his socks has violated our polices, been blocked of even warned for anything as far as I can tell - they were editing constructively for weeks or even months, up to the point they were banned upon being confirmed as socks of HH (presumably due to editing the same articles/subjects). An unban of him was proposed by another admin already few months ago (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Productive_socks) and since than we have accumulated more evidence (based on his continued pattern of editing via socks) that he wants to be a constructive member of our community. He is making constructive content edits (creating and expanding articles), he is not edit warring, and doesn't seem to be flaming or otherwise disruptive (which IIRC was a major complain against HH). As such, I believe we should review his behavior once again, since its shows signs of improvement, and consider unbanning him, perhaps under some restriction/mentorship. In the end, if Hanzo wants to help us build encyclopedia in a constructive manner, without repeating his past mistakes (as he has shown us he can), why should we not allow him to do so? Not to mention that blocking his successive constructive socks is making a mockery of our ideals that blocks/bans and such should be preventative, not punitive. PS. I'd like to strongly encourage all who had bad experiences with HH to review his behavior in the past year and so instead of remembering old grievances. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense but are we looking at the same sock? OKSK has edit warred, been ridiculously uncivil (including after his block), and has not shown a single solitary sign that he has learned from his past mistakes, but instead continues acting exactly the same. He hasn't shown any desire to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and his "good contributions" include tons of original research and copyvio's taken straight from IMDB! What constructive editing as he done? Making a glut of unsourced video game stubs? Sorry, but I support leaving the permaban in place, and I never had interaction with HH so I'm speaking only from new grievances, not old ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the diffs for his edit warring and incivility? The only incivility I saw was after his block, which I consider understandable (which doesn't mean excusable, of course). I did review his video game articles, and they are fine - as noted in relevant discussion, there is no obvious copyvio. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring (for which he has a huge glaring warning on his talk page for and which is how I got introduced to him) was on Naga the Serpent[4]. His response to the warning? "oh geez, come on. Do we need a drama?" [5] I left him a sternly worded note about his attitude during the edit war with another editor (and his edit summary offering to violate copyright to prove his OR is still OR). In addition to falsely claiming he wasn't doing anything but rewriting what's there (when clear check shows he added OR content[6]), he basically responded with "No U are edit warring"[7], then saying he didn't write the info he added[8] implying another possible copyright violation. When the other editor started a discussion asking for reliable sources instead of just original research, OKSK responded demanding to have one item pointed out one thing "you EXACTLY have a problem with, I'll prove you wrong, and you will go away" even though the editor had already done just that[9]. Later, having received the warnings I already mentioned, he responds to calm, rational discussion with "I guess it may be done, but this is idiotic. I only tried to clean-up this article (actually deleted only the stupid stuff about how cosplaying Naga is banned), then cleaned-up more and asked what exactly I'd have to prove, got a warning and you guys ganged-up on me, so now go and play but without me. Bye."[10] (but of course continued the conversation).
In Talk:Game Over (video game), his "starting a discussion" on his marking the article as censored, along with post a picture of a human nipple.[11]. He was asked to actually post a clear discussion of what he felt was wrong with the article[12], and instead asked if nipples were evil and later continuing to dodge the issue of what he actually felt was wrong with the article.[13][14] He left a note on the talk page of another editor he was disagreeing with using "You're doing it wrong" as the subject and a message of "Look what you're doing." (with no context, anything)[15] With another, he left a note saying "Please stop lying. Thank you"[16] in response to that editor having left him a note asking him to conform to the MoS and explaining why his edits to Jonestown were reverted[17] Said article was Jonestown, another place he edit warring in which two different editors reverted his image moving[18]. His history really speaks for itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Few reverts don't equal edit warring, but if you think his return should be conditional upon 1RR restriction, that may be a good idea. As for his talk posts, they are a bit childish sometimes, but I am not seeing any serious personal attacks? But again, a civility parole and a mentorship could be beneficial for him. The point is that a user who is mostly editing constructively can benefit from our attempts to reform him, and the project will benefit from that more then from banning and rebanning user who is, most of the time, peacefully working on good content articles (ex. Lublin Ghetto). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Must say I am absolutely (not) amazed that Piotrus is going in to bat for the foul-mouthed editor that was HanzoHattori. Evidence? Look at the block logs...for example. User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog/Archive 1 is full of warnings and blocks for edit warring, uncivility, etc. User talk:RamboKadyrov is full of typical HH tirades, telling the community at large fuck you on no less than 6 occasions -- this is brilliant and typical of why this user should never see the light of day again -- Quote -- "I think I am one of the best and most active users but I never looked for recognition for all my work (never cared to be whatever moderators are called here), but now I'm called "sock puppet" by some idiots (fuck you, your mother is a sock puppet) and barred from working, repeatedly. So, either I am officially allowed to return and someone says "sorry for that" to me, or fuck you, Wikipedians, for the last time.". I say let this child continue to say "Screw you guys... I'm going home!" and continue to block their socks at every opportunity. --Russavia Dialogue 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Unlike Collectonian and Russavia, I interacted with Hanzo for years, and he was one of the most dedicated and productive content editors I have ever seen. While editing under several accounts, he made around 70,000 edits and created hundreds new articles (some precise data can be provided if needed, this is only a tip of the iceberg). I am mostly familiar with his contributions on Russia, Caucasus and Chechen wars related articles. I thought he lived in this area - so intimately he was familiar with the subject (I personally visited North Caucasus many times as a hiker/mountaineer). Hanzo was very cooperative, and we talked a lot about editing a number of articles. He did high quality work, as one can see, for example, from Beslan school hostage crisis, where he was one of chief contributors. He was very cooperative with me. If we decided to create an article, it was enough just to start it, as he was coming to help (see this article, for example). He was a very neutral editor and corrected my POV many times. But there was another side of the coin. He worked with extreme dedication (sometimes 15 hours non-stop) and definitely overworked here. He also had a lot of trouble explaining what he is doing to others, especially if they were not familiar with the subject (I remember helping him to explain others the difference between War crimes, Crime against peace and crimes against humanity). This led to tensions when he had a trouble controlling himself, which ultimately led to his ban. He also has an unfortunate habit of using foul words on talk. I would strongly support him coming back, but only under two conditions. First, he should make a promise and really to make an effort towards more polite and cooperative conversation with other users (I personally had no trouble communicating with him, but some others did). Second, he probably needs a mentorship and some form of civility parole.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the administrators face a tough dilemma: an editor who is obviously dedicated and able to contribute productively, yet who also--one way or another--has difficulty within a consensus environment. Per Wikipedia:Standard offer HanzoHattori seems like the kind of editor who would be a good candidate for a return, yet would go about it a different way than this. Overall, we've gotten better results in the past from bringing back banned editors who went several months without socking, than by unbanning in spite of recent socking. So here's an offer: if HanzoHattori goes six months without socking at all, or makes at least 500 productive and unproblematic edits at another WMF site within the next three months, then at the end of the time frame I will initiate an unban discussion for him and support his return. If he wishes, he is welcome to participate at any of the three sister projects where I am a sysop (Commons, Wikisource, or Wikinews), although any WMF site would be fine. Best wishes, Durova273 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Could somebody inform Hanzo of this? He gave no indication he is following this thread, and due to his block, he obviously cannot reply here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't support unbanning someone (indeed, someone who's sock puppet I've been reverting), but having checked Piotr's arguments, I tend to agree with Durova on the solution.

if HanzoHattori goes six months without socking at all, or makes at least 500 productive and unproblematic edits at another WMF site within the next three months

looks fine to me. E.g. Polish, Russian or some other wiki (I have no idea of which nationality he is in fact) would be OK, too? --Miacek (t) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with him coming back, as long as he is placed on 1RR and civility parole upon his return, for a period of at least 6 months. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious Issues and Pervasive Abuse involving Falun Gong and related articles[edit]

I will try to be as concise as possible here. Firstly, what I am about to bring up is a systemic, on-going, pervasive issue about the POV and disruptive editing issues present within articles related to Falun Gong. It has become very serious over the past few years, and I don't know if this is the right place to go. The amount of POV-pushing on Falun Gong and its related family of articles (Li Hongzhi, Persecution of Falun Gong etc.) has grown to a point where it needs dire attention from not only an administrator, but much higher Wikipedia authorities. Questions you may ask at this point are:

1. What has been done about this issue in the past?

- Numerous editors have reported instances of pervasive pro-FLG editing habits by several users to this noticeboard, to the Arbitration Committee, and various other Wiki-policy enforcing authorities. An arbitration on this issue has been conducted before, but its rules have not been enforced. In fact, if you search the administrator's archives, the issue of constant pro-Falun Gong editing has been mentioned no less than on ten separate occasions. None of the resolutions have yet become effective in keeping the contents of these articles NPOV.

2. What exactly are the issues here?

  • Disruptive editing, severe degrees of Wikilawyering, whereby sources critical of Falun Gong are constantly removed, regardless of where they are from.
  • POV-pushing. A read through the article and you will see that some of the POV-laden phrases are hidden quite subtly, are within the boundaries of the letter of applicable policies, but are outright against the spirit of these policies.
  • Article ownership. Critical responses to Falun Gong on the talk page have been constantly defended by four specific editors.
  • Abuse of other users. A look through the archives of the talk page (of which there are now 24), it is apparent that many editors have been branded as "agents of the Communist Party of China" and discredited as such. Much of the responses to any postings critical of Falun Gong involves very personal attacks, or personal swaps at credibility.
  • Various other abuses that are visible as soon as you take a look through the article's edit history and the history of its talk pages.

3. How can we verify that this is true, and not just an attempt at reverse POV-pushing in itself?

  • Go visit the article's edit history beginning around 2005, and especially since 2008. Visit the article's some 24 archives of disputes, unseen anywhere else on Wikipedia.
  • For one, the users that have taken ownership of the Falun Gong article have gotten very adept at bypassing Wikipedia policies. They will likely come to this very noticeboard after I post this notice and attempt to defend themselves vehemently. In the event this happens I urge you to listen to every word of their defence and assess their credibility yourselves.

4. What is being proposed at fixing the issue?

  • As other options have been attempted in the past and have been exhausted, an investigation led by neutral, third-party administrators or higher Wikipedia authorities, must be conducted thoroughly into the sheer abuse of Falun Gong and its related articles by Falun Gong and its related editors.
  • The issue is extremely serious. It would not be unfair to say that the continued existence of the articles in their current state severely compromises Wikipedia's credibility in these controversial topics. To my knowledge, nothing of this scale has ever occurred on Wikipedia. It has persisited for several years now and will continue if nothing is done. Something enforceable must be done.

Colipon+(T) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest? I think that, without even looking at the dispute, I think there may be an issue here. Wikipedians tend to be, among other things, a little too pro-Amnesty International. An admirable real-life stance, but on Wikipedia taking AI's word as gospel can severely affect neutrality; they have a bias themselves. Sceptre (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, in many cases the only thing approaching objective reporting on the cases AI reports is AI itself. (Responses like this one, while of interest to some users of Wikipedia & worth a link, don't merit more than a passing reference.) Where there is a more-or-less independent news media, Wikipedians can -- & obviously should -- present other points of view on the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. You may wish to review the findings, and see whether they encompass your complaints above and whether the principles expounded are being adhered to (it doesn't matter if the parties names are different). If you believe the principles or findings are being violated you may take up the matter with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and if you believe that the findings and principles require clarification then you may find Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification useful. If none of these seem to resolve your concerns you might consider opening a new Request for Arbitration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm one of the accused. It would probably do no good to give a point-by-point response. I welcome an investigation into both my conduct and editing behaviour, and into whether the Falun Gong article adheres to wikipedia's content guidelines and is an accurate reflection of reliable sources on the topic. Let's hash it out. (note: the page in question has mostly been in its current form for about two years) What's next? --Asdfg12345 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will comment briefly: the Falun Gong articles mostly contain references to high-quality academic sources, many of them peer-reviewed. As a rule of thumb, such sources do not resort to sensationalism, and seek to understand Falun Gong based on fieldwork, facts and solid arguments. This is apparently very disturbing to those who have different notions. In most cases, such editors have been unable to back up their views with credible and verifiable sources (for instance, we've had endless discussions about the personal website of Rick Ross, who clearly fails WP:RS). Referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines frequently gets called "wikilawyering" and "rule-page bashing" (without concrete elaborations on the accusation), because the proponents of fringe views a) are usually not familiar with the Wiki policies and what they entail, b) find it frustrating that the "other party" is able to back up their claims by references to existing policy, c) are on the losing side of almost any debate, because their sources do not qualify, and what prominent academics say is not consistent with their anti-Falun Gong ideology. Just like Asdfg12345, I welcome any outside investigators. Enjoy yourselves — this is an interesting show. Olaf Stephanos 09:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

apart from the admin fireStar, who may have retired, basically all those who edit those articles are SPAs: either devotees of this organisation, or strongly pro-CCP/nationalist people. The articles are basically always going to be a joke, more or less. ArbCom can't change this, apart from deleting the article, unless they decide to read up on FLG (or anyone else) and fix it themselves. This actually would apply to a lot of new religious movements. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with most of the sources currently used in the Falun Gong articles. As for myself, I am not a "devotee" of any "organisation", and I find such labels insulting. I practice Falun Gong, just like some people practice tai chi or martial arts; I have never joined any organisation, as there is no organisation to join. I am also majoring in religious studies, and I am well-read in the scholarly works on the topic. I know the Wikipedia standards of conduct, and I know what it means that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. As long as all sides adhere to the rules and justify their stances through references to policies and guidelines, the articles will naturally be good and comprehensive.
Objectivity and neutrality are methods in themselves: a fair and balanced article does not mean equating low-ranking sources with high-ranking sources. Wikipedia has explicit criteria by which to judge the quality of a source. Even in their present form — which undeniably leaves some room for improvement — the articles are far from being a "joke". They contain references to most top researchers in the field and quite accurately describe their position. Abstract accusations and generalisations cannot help us get forward; we need people with a rigorous, methodical attitude, tangible suggestions, reliable sources, convincing arguments, knowledge of the policies and guidelines, and good faith. Olaf Stephanos 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, I would welcome you to point out how, exactly, the Falun Gong fails to comply with wikipedia's content policies. You have read it, haven't you?--Asdfg12345 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin help in creating an archive page for my talk page[edit]

Hello. I would like to create the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamielang77/Archive3. Wikipedia is not allowing this; but says I need to get admin permission. Could I get some help, please? Thank you for any assistance/direction. Jamie L.talk 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me see User talk:Jamielang77/Archive3. MER-C 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like it might have hit the title-blacklist somehow. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, MER-C. Yes, Stifle, I was running into the title being blacklisted. Regards, Jamie L.talk 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New user makes request[edit]

I'm new to "Wiki" but I've just registered an account . I want to request whoever responsible to "EDIT" The Republic Of Ghana's political history, the later part between 1996-2008 . I will give you a clue; Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings won elections 1992(4yr term) and 1996(4yr term).In year 2000 elections John Agyekum Kuffuo won the electon two terms 2000-2008 . Current it is Arthur Mills in power after winning the recent election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OWUSU-BOATENG (talkcontribs) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It does look like Kuffuo or John A Kufour as the Electoral Commission of Ghana states [19] won in 2000 & 2004. And that fact is covered well in theHistory of Ghana article and the President of Ghana article. The main article can't possibly contain all of the details, which is why there are sub-articles. You perhaps should discuss this on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ghana was indefinitely semi-protected more than a year ago. Protection is now removed. Thatcher 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request review of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist request[edit]

I left a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807 for white-listing (rather than WP-blocking) the site, that is, URL

http://astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807

That site contains an extensive sole-source excerpt of ch. 1 from the book Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications by Oliver E. Williamson. Action on the request was in the "not done" category with the note 2 Edits later that:

I'm still not convinced; if another admin viewing here thinks differently they can go ahead and add it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon the generous counsel of Stifle yesterday at User talk:Thomasmeeks#MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, I am seeking a review of my request. I have found only 2 subsequent admin actions of any kind at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist since June 21 other than by Stifle, suggesting that the request might have been overlooked rather than rejected.

I did add a note on June 21 after Stifle's ccmment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, bottom. It makes the case for the request succinctly and I hope more clearly trhan before. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above but related in general, why don't we funnel all our Amazon links through an affiliate link (which would be the only whitelisted one, so no one could do any games) that funneled to the WMF directly for the profits to be 'donations'? rootology (C)(T) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal image[edit]

Might be a good idea to protect File:Wikimedia-button1.png. It is used at the bottom of http://www.wikipedia.org - Gurch (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And File:Bookshelf-40x201 6.png. Seriously, is nobody keeping track of these things? Gurch (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I'm on the phone to Grawp as we speak... you might get a better response at WP:RFPP. Majorly talk 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I got a five-minute response for the first one, I usually get three to five hours for protection requests done the normal way. Gurch (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Second image protected too. EyeSerenetalk 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking into this further, the images on the portal are scattered across enwiki, commons, and meta; looks like several of them are protected only by virtue of being transcluded on commons:Main Page, which is cascade protected. Didn't find any other currently unprotected images, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Did everyone just forget about WP:BEANS? Nobody did it because it hasn't been used that way before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing dispute[edit]

One noticeboard is enough, thank you. This can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admins vs contributors, where the context is more apparent and the discussion was already occurring. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Resolved: The user in question has had their username change request processed; the account no longer has an offensive name. Other issues (edit warring, incivility) can be dealt with seperately now --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to pose this question to my fellow admins: If a user is blocked for an inappropriate username, then requests unblocking to change their name and the request is granted, is it ok for the editor to request their username change, then continue editing before the username change is put into effect? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a tough call. If the user filed a properly formatted username change request in good faith, then they probably have no reason to avoid editing. Have you judged the quality of their edits? Are they generally disruptive, or are they editing in good faith? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's actually more complicated. The editor Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, then the block was changed to indef for username violation. After unblocking to file a username change, the editor filed the name change request but editor returned to the previous conflict, (on a talk page this time). I reblocked because the unblock was specifically to change username and I'm questioning my own action.
To answer the question more directly, the confrontational user has a confrontational username. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In interests of full disclosure, I undid Toddst1's reblock (rather brashly). IMO, it is not unreasonable to ask an editor with a particularly offensive username to refrain from editing until they are renamed... but if that isn't done, we should stick to what we say. This case was further complicated by the fact that the new username the user picked was taken, and the request is now at WP:USURP. It's been approved but won't be carried out until July 14th. Mangojuicetalk 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible and to be sure, I am not questioning Mango's action here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I marked this one resolved, as the name change request has been processed so this is no longer an issue. If other issues with this user exist, they can now be dealt with seperately, as this is no longer a valid problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that microbiologists around the world will sigh in dismay to learn that Wikipedia administrators think that FhuE, the E. coli receptor protein for ferric coprogen, is a "particularly offensive" word that mustn't be used on talk pages. Either that or they'll laugh. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editcounter[edit]

The editcounter is displaying "Gateway Timeout - Processing of this request was delegated to a server that is not functioning properly." preventing access. Browser = Safari. Don't know if this is a browser problem or something; but the edit counter has been apparently down from the start of July 7. Shannon1talk contribs 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest posting this at the Technical Village Pump? We're pretty knowledgeable over there, and this problem has hardly anything to do with administrators. Most importantly, however, what edit counter are you referring to? See here for a list of them. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Should be working now. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD in need of admin action[edit]

Resolved: deletion discussion closed, result was delete. Consensus was pretty clear; only support came from the article creator, who likely had a WP:COI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin either close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination)? It appears the nomination was never properly finished and thus didn't appear on the deletion log for June 29. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it was relisted, it is now properly shown in the deletion log for July 6. Looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I apparently missed the re-list notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA reform[edit]

I have created a proposal for reforming many aspects of RFA, including some new processes, in order to address what I have seen as the major ways in which the process is severely bent if not actually broken.

The proposal is here, talkpage here.

I have kept this in userspace for now as I feel it would only make sense to put it in projectspace if any parts are generally approved by the community and edited to reflect such possible approval. I would have no objection to the pages being moved out of my userspace if someone else thinks I am mistaken in that. I invite discussion from all sides. Crossposted at WP:VPP, WT:RFA, WP:AN. Please repost if I have missed anywhere. → ROUX  06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Resolved: The user in question has had their username change request processed; the account no longer has an offensive name. Other issues (edit warring, incivility) can be dealt with seperately now --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to pose this question to my fellow admins: If a user is blocked for an inappropriate username, then requests unblocking to change their name and the request is granted, is it ok for the editor to request their username change, then continue editing before the username change is put into effect? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a tough call. If the user filed a properly formatted username change request in good faith, then they probably have no reason to avoid editing. Have you judged the quality of their edits? Are they generally disruptive, or are they editing in good faith? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's actually more complicated. The editor Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, then the block was changed to indef for username violation. After unblocking to file a username change, the editor filed the name change request but editor returned to the previous conflict, (on a talk page this time). I reblocked because the unblock was specifically to change username and I'm questioning my own action.
To answer the question more directly, the confrontational user has a confrontational username. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In interests of full disclosure, I undid Toddst1's reblock (rather brashly). IMO, it is not unreasonable to ask an editor with a particularly offensive username to refrain from editing until they are renamed... but if that isn't done, we should stick to what we say. This case was further complicated by the fact that the new username the user picked was taken, and the request is now at WP:USURP. It's been approved but won't be carried out until July 14th. Mangojuicetalk 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible and to be sure, I am not questioning Mango's action here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I marked this one resolved, as the name change request has been processed so this is no longer an issue. If other issues with this user exist, they can now be dealt with seperately, as this is no longer a valid problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that microbiologists around the world will sigh in dismay to learn that Wikipedia administrators think that FhuE, the E. coli receptor protein for ferric coprogen, is a "particularly offensive" word that mustn't be used on talk pages. Either that or they'll laugh. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editcounter[edit]

The editcounter is displaying "Gateway Timeout - Processing of this request was delegated to a server that is not functioning properly." preventing access. Browser = Safari. Don't know if this is a browser problem or something; but the edit counter has been apparently down from the start of July 7. Shannon1talk contribs 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest posting this at the Technical Village Pump? We're pretty knowledgeable over there, and this problem has hardly anything to do with administrators. Most importantly, however, what edit counter are you referring to? See here for a list of them. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Should be working now. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD in need of admin action[edit]

Resolved: deletion discussion closed, result was delete. Consensus was pretty clear; only support came from the article creator, who likely had a WP:COI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin either close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination)? It appears the nomination was never properly finished and thus didn't appear on the deletion log for June 29. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it was relisted, it is now properly shown in the deletion log for July 6. Looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I apparently missed the re-list notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA reform[edit]

I have created a proposal for reforming many aspects of RFA, including some new processes, in order to address what I have seen as the major ways in which the process is severely bent if not actually broken.

The proposal is here, talkpage here.

I have kept this in userspace for now as I feel it would only make sense to put it in projectspace if any parts are generally approved by the community and edited to reflect such possible approval. I would have no objection to the pages being moved out of my userspace if someone else thinks I am mistaken in that. I invite discussion from all sides. Crossposted at WP:VPP, WT:RFA, WP:AN. Please repost if I have missed anywhere. → ROUX  06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing on Lyme disease[edit]

Resolved: Unfortunate co-incidence in timing. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See this forum. Coincidentally User:Simesa just opened a RfC on the talkpage to address "NPOV issues" and stated that they were basing their complaints on "comments from others in another forum" (diff). Could somebody talk to Simesa about canvassing? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been an issue before (see most of Talk:Lyme disease/Archive 3) - not with Simesa in particular, but with extensive off-wiki canvassing, activism, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry designed to use Wikipedia to further a specific agenda at Lyme disease. Outside eyes headed this off in the past and would be useful again. I suppose that editors or admins thinking of getting involved should be aware that emotions on the subject run high. MastCell Talk 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Are you suggesting that one of the forum posters is Simesa? Although off-site recruiting and POV pushing of fringe material is an old problem on the Lyme Disease article (exacerbated by the fact that the Lyme activists/conspiracy theorists seem to think we're all in the pay of the US political-military complex), as long as Simesa is editing within Wikipedia rules and isn't a sock of one of the many blocked editors that have haunted that page, I don't know that there's much we can do. If they become disruptive by trying to circumvent WP:UNDUE, edit-war over content, or game consensus, that's another matter. EyeSerenetalk 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: forgot to mention that I've watchlisted the article and will be happy to help out with the tools if required - give me a kick if I'm not paying enough attention ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Writing this up, I've decided there's enough evidence to strongly suggest sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simesa. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Could be - FIKL advocates socking on the forum, and I remember that name... though having looked at Simesa's edit history, it's unlikely. EyeSerenetalk 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, probably a case of Simesa making a well-intentioned attempt to deal with issues raised by people that they know from this forum. However, as the original poster did state that they'd been banned, I've reminded Simesa about the dangers of appearing to edit on behalf of a banned user. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that's the most likely interpretation. However, your reminder about the possible consequences of proxying - even if done in good faith - is timely. In the light of your second diff above and the history of fringe-group activism on that article, I'd also urge Simesa to be scrupulously careful about their edits on Lyme disease and punctilious in selecting reliable sources to support them. Proposing them on the talk-page to gauge consensus, before applying WP:BOLD might be a very good idea ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding - I meant a forum outside of Wikipedia. I'm on the Mensa forums, two Lyme-Aid groups (who did not ask me to edit here), Facebook, and several other "forums". No Wikipedia editor or reader asked me to edit Lyme disease. I've heard of sock-puppets but never known one personally. I've only known one Wikipedia editor who had to be temporarily suspended (let alone banned), and that was partly through my actions.
I asked for an RfC because, frankly, it seemed obvious that unbiased eyes were needed. Since, as I recall, the article is semi-protected I thought we were guaranteed of getting experienced ones.
Although, based on both research and personal experience (my wife now has chronic Lyme disease despite many weeks of doxycycline), I am concerned that the Lyme disease article seems so heavily slanted in favor of laboratory studies as opposed to actual patient experiences I am still not unduly worried - the real action on this topic is now at the federal level. I fully expect that the article will have to be 60% re-written in maybe 18 months. Simesa (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
ADDENDA - Just looked at the link. I didn't know that Healingwell.com existed. Simesa (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused, when you said "comments from others in another forum", which forum were you referring to and who made these comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to modify a statement above - My wife has done far more informal reading and research about Lyme disease than I have, and I had her double-check her notes and e-mails. We found that a number of months ago she joined Healingwell.com, but has not posted to them nor received posts from them (after the initial "hellos"). As for her reading the website she says she hasn't since joining, but I have no way to verify that. (This may seem like an odd post, but I have a policy of correcting all errors.) Simesa (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm running a check so as to accurately answer Tim's question with correct times. Simesa (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The check has taken over a half hour so far and hasn't completed. I'm continuing it, but won't be able to monopolize our line endlessly. Simesa (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The check is taking too long to wait for completion, I'll just report the times as shown. Specifically, the forum I saw a note on was Yahoo's Lyme-Aid group. My first edit on Lyme disease was at 07:05 on 27 June. I made a change there at 14:19 on 5 July and then worked on a large number of changes that I posted cumulatively at 21:44 on 5 July (dial-up is a slow way to research and I have to share the line)(times are as reported in my Wikipedia histories, which are 1 hour earlier than current Eastern Time). The (on the Yahoo group) post "Wikipedia entry on Lyme" was made at 19:15 on 5 July by a "Sara R..." (I can't tell what that time means, if it is when entered or when actually shown or Eastern or Pacific) - in any event, I didn't see it on 5 July as I was researching (my attention was called to it the next day). Simesa (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, that checks out fine. Unfortunate coincidence that two people on different forums were trying to recruit advocates simultaneously, one a banned user. You might tell Sara that it wasn't the case that "Wormser" wrote the article, it is just that we have to follow WP:NPOV and report what the reliable sources state on a topic. You might also point her in the direction of WP:TRUTH, but she might not see the humour in that essay. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Tim. By the way, my check finally completed long after I'd gone to bed (my wife stays up later, partly due to Lyme pain) - the Yahoo group time is when shown on the board (current Eastern Time). (I had to change this note after double-checking - my wife's note is wrong.) Simesa (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of completion (I'm somewhat anal-retentive on getting details right), I need to modify the above statement. Each Yahoo post apparently comes with TWO times. Inside the post is the time when submitted (which for Sara R...'s post was 19:15 on 5 July). On the list of posts page is the time that the post is actually shown - which for Sara R...'s post was 04:05 on 6 July (which is similar to the delay my own check experienced). I apologize for the confusion. Simesa (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem link[edit]

Resolved

Can someone check the link that User:Goatsemarathon posted on their userpage, as I suspect it's NSFW (which is where I am)? The name popped up at UAA and I doubt the user is here to contribute anything useful. TNXMan 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely NSFW and non-encyclopedic. It's exactly what you think it is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as I thought. Page deleted and user warned. Thanks, Fabrictramp. TNXMan 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the account as a vandalism only user, although the account could have been blocked as a username violation. Edison (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr Taz[edit]

I'd like to bring to your attention the constant stream of misleading/nonsense redirects, edit warring and other unacceptable behaviour by Mr Taz. The following examples are really just the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday the redirect England Government, one of a number tagged by me which had been created by Mr Taz, was speedily deleted by Tnxman307. Twenty four hours later, it reappeared, the work of the same editor. This is not the first time he has done this with his highly original and misleading redirects (see his Talk page), about 80 of which I had speedily deleted a couple of months back. He also engages in edit wars to reinstate the indefensible, such as "national days" invented by him (see Talk:British Day and also the edit history of Foundation Day) etc etc. Despite having been banned for a week for his edits at the latter he was back again today trying to reinstate his imaginary "Foundation Days", as this edit shows. His latest creations included Flag of Great Britain and Ireland as a redirect to Flag of the United Kingdom. I've got so tired of it that I now tend to let the purely nonsense or illiterate redirects such as Regional Development Agency for the Yorkshire and the Humber ‎ (redirected to Yorkshire Forward) pass by as I just don't have the time to keep up with it all. Other recent POV (not sure exactly what it is!) redirects include Great British Central Bank ‎and Great Britain Central Bank (redirected to Bank of England). I should add that these redirects, together with minor edits, are all that Mr Taz "contributes" here. He just will not listen to reason. Something needs to be done about this; all he is doing is creating work for others who have to deal with his edits. Could you please look into this, bearing in mind that much of the worst has been deleted so isn't on his contributions log? Administrators involved thus far include DGG, Bencherlite and Tnxman307. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the imaginary "Days", you might also consider these requested articles, just posted. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the pattern of edits pointed out by Enaidmawr. Many of these redirects are not helpful. See, for example, Governor and Company of the Bank of England (which redirects to Bank of England) or James VI of Scotland and James I of England (which redirects to James I of England) and are very unlikely search terms. TNXMan 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm off to check WP:ANI's archives, but I think there was an issue with Mr Taz raised there (maybe even here) in the past month or so - a mission to invent "foundation days" for the United Kingdom and also the Kingdom of Great Britain. The consensus at the time, if I recall correctly, was that it was bizarre behaviour. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Aye, and apparently I got involved, which is obviously why it rang a bell ;-) Full gory details here: Mr Taz was blocked for a week. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Enaidmawr about this long standing disruption of Wikipedia by this editor. For further background into the Foundation Day edit war in particular, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Persistent disruption by Mr_Taz, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Continued disruption by Mr Taz and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8 (top two entries). Since the beginning of March Mr Taz has embarked on his disruptive crusade to add a day or days he has made up to the Foundation Day disambiguation page, and despite two previous blocks for edits to that page or closely related to it, today he returned to his usual disruptive ways and added his nonsense again. I believe it is time he was told that any further attempts to add those days to that page will result in a block. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't only redirects, it's all sort of needless or plain wrong little changes,e.g. [20]. some of the work he does here is useful e.g. [21], or [22] I even think some of the redirects are defensible--as East New Jersey. But the general pattern shows lack of judgment, and the insistence on them is unconstructive. (I finally protected the "English Government" redirect to prevent re-creation--but there are 100s of them. ). I don't think he's working in bad faith, but I don't know how to get him to understand. DGG (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Bleargh, I'm currently working through his contribs and reverting the crap (like his bizarre addiction to creating '______ Day') and putting up multiple redirs for speedy. Indef until he understands how to contribute please. → ROUX  18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

After continuing to review this user's contributions and seeing previous blocks for the same issue, I have blocked Mr Taz indefinitely. I am, of course, open to changing/reducing this block if the user can agree to contribute constructively. TNXMan 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Good block, imho. That he kept arguing that Foundation Day isn't imaginary after being blocked is pretty much all we need to know about his intentions. As for the other pages.. I've gone back as far as mid-May-ish to nuke the more useless/pointless edits and request speedy on the more useless/pointless redirs. I haven't got the strength for more.. → ROUX  20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(comment from sock removed)

    • Most of them have now been deleted. They were nonsense, along with the user's stubborn insistence on including a nonexistent holiday, as well as e.g. renaming Prince Charles' investiture to Investiture Day, amongst a host of other largely nonsense and/or useless edits. Also, I don't believe it is within the purview of WP:SOCK for alternate accounts to participate in internal discussions. → ROUX  22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an indefinitely blocked user remove the indef block template from their user page?[edit]

Here's the diff: [23] - I can't find anyplace that says they can't do this, but it seems sensible that their user page should show their indef blocked status. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response) - That is generally from my experience a big no-no. I would revert it and if they keep it up, request protection on the talk page. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it is an indef blocked user ... then the anon is either not the user in question, in which case they shouldn't be editing the content of an indef blocked user's page ... or it is the indef blocked user, in which case they are logged out to get around the block and shouldn't be editing regardless. In either case, I think reverting is appropriate. And, if it continues, temporary semi-protection of the page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per WP:BLANKING, "Important exceptions [to allowing users to remove talk page content] may include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices". I would say that indef-block notices fall under this as well and should not be removed. TNXMan 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm tired. Obviously a blocked user can't edit ther user page. The IP is clearly the blocked user, he just put an indef block notice on the Admin who blocked him. I'll give the IP a week's block right now and deal with the user page. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Resolved: Thread started by sockpuppet of banned user. → ROUX  08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continues to edit articles with which he has a COI. Please warn and put a stop to this. -- Rickywatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please repost this to WP:ANI (the incidents noticeboard) including what articles Hullaballo Wolfowitz has COI over, how, and what edits they have made against policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Been there. Done that. Didn't even get a T-shirt, no less a block. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Note that Rickywatcher was indef-blocked as an abusive sock shortly after posting here. User_talk:Rickywatcher. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

Third-party opinions are required at Talk:Anna Anderson#cleanup. In the words of User:Gwen Gale, there is an "edit war" between two administrators. DrKiernan (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Stricken. DrKiernan (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy[edit]

It sounds pathetic, but it is still an issue that needs resolving. Despite four pokes [24] [25] [26] [27], this editor is refusing to use edit summaries. I have also bought the editor up on their position of maintenance templates on a page, guidelines clearly state that they should always go at the top (except for a handful), yet this editor seems to randomly position them on the page wherever he/she feels. It's not so much the minor infringements which are the issue here, but the editors blatent disregard to listening to comments made by other users, not replying to messages, blanking the messages shortly after.

They were recently blocked for similar disregard and refusing to listen to what people say by User:SarekOfVulcan [28] (relevant discussion on talk page [29]) Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • First, have you asked Sarek about it? If someone gets blocked for something, and continues doing it right afterwards, that's worth adding another block. Blanking messages are not an issue (annoying) but by policy, we just assume they've been read. Comments like this aren't productive at all. I'd like to see others who have an issue over their edits as I don't see too many issues with the orphan tagging that's currently being done. The talk page is a little light on issues, is there something I'm not seeing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I havent said anything to Sarek, as its not exactly the same situation, its just similar (showing disregard for what is being said), I pointed out the blanking to show that the messages are at least getting read, just blatantly ignored. The recent taggings should now be OK if you are viewing the live article, as I have been through most of todays and done a cleanup. It would be nice if said editor would justify why they feel they are exempt from using edit summaries, and why they feel the need to place maintenance tags in random positions on articles! It does nothing for consistency. Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • They do it because they don't care. It's easy to just do whatever you want, and there's plenty you can do without interacting with anyone. The difficulty here is the actual interacting with the other human beings part. Hell, a bot could goes around and list orphan articles all day (and I thought one did). That's not difficult. It's the "hi, let's talk" part that drives some editors nuts. There's plenty of editors for whom nothing sort of an indefinite block will make them respond or even acknowledge that other people here exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • As it stands, I don't think there is grounds for a block, unless the user continues on disregarding attempts to put him/her on the straight and narrow, then it becomes more of an issue. He/she went inactive shortly before I posted this, I presume they have gone to bed, so its only fair to wait and see if this brings any response from the editor. In the mean time, would it be considered canvassing if I alerted Sarek to this thread? As he has had past experience with this user, his input may be useful. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, Jenuk, but the user continues to tag articles like a tagbot (actually, even worse than one. Less considerations, and no edit summaries!). Just look at her contribs! She isn't inactive, she just doesn't want to be disturbed with those complaints. So, Cathy isn't responsive at all, and continues this annoying behaviour, which leaves many newbies puzzled over what to do, and about if Cathy has any competence to harass them (I'm still quite a newb myself, I know the feeling). And about 20000 articles plastered with tags is a lot of nuissance! The whole business of orphan tacking is questionable in the first place, because its not a required policy. It should be better left to a bot, and everybody would be better of of Cathy would concentrate on the more productive parts of her work, like correcting caps issues in Article titles, and mocing them. Imho it would be good if at least some warning would be applied! Gray62 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • PostCard Cathy seems to use edit summaries for edits that need an explanation, and no edit summaries for edits that are self-explanatory. Although I believe that people should use edit summaries for all edits, I think that's a pretty reasonable way to use edit summaries, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to badger her about it (disclaimer: I only checked a random sample of edits from the last couple of days). Kusma (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:FIES doesn't give an exemption for self explanatory edits, however that's being pedantic, and its only a minor side of why I started this thread! Jenuk1985 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I posted a comment about the maintenance tags since that's a simple issue that's not too bad. No edit summaries are annoying but it's not like we're talking about giant edits though. We'll see. I doubt things will change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Uh, no giant edits? Everysingle one for himself, certainly not. But we're talking about up a user with 21200 edits, the majority of those are tags, judging from the contribs. Many o those tags were placed in violation of Wiki guidelines (surnames aren't tagged!), leaving other editors to do lenghty reverts. That a huge nuissance. Gray62 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here actually seems to be that other people aren't understanding what Postcard Cathy is saying. I can sympathise to an extent if xe thought that xe was talking to a brick wall at User talk:Postcard Cathy#Orphan tags on {{surname}} pages, because there was a problem with quite a number of other people not comprehending a point that xe did make twice. Since I make no claims to being a member of Mensa on my user page, I'll try to explain what Postcard Cathy was saying to the editors who are making personal remarks about stupidity here:

Postcard Cathy is using the toolserver-generated list of orphan pages. In the list's description, there is a clear statement of the possibility that 'bots will go through this list and tag the pages. Postcard Cathy is working on the basis that this happens, and is stating that you should work on the basis that this happens. If you don't want to have certain pages not tagged by such automated processes, then you should fix how that list is generated. Complaining about automated or semi-automated processing of the list is a mis-directed complaint. Fix the way that the list of untagged orphan articles is actually generated in the first place. Then any automated or semi-automated processing of it will fall into line with your desires without need for any further effort on anyone's part.

For what it's worth, I did once suspect Postcard Cathy's edits of being 'bot-produced, and in the same class as my long-time wikistalker, SmackBot. Treat xem like a 'bot in this case. Doing so will obtain the result that you desire. Fix the input that is going in to the 'bot, the actual list of untagged orphan articles that is being worked from, and the output will as a consequence fix itself.

As such, a block for "refusing to listen to what people say" is not quite fair. Because the problem here in part is also other people not paying attention to what Postcard Cathy is saying.

And Ricky81682 and Jenuk1985, please use some sense of perspective. Placing a notice in a position that you personally don't like isn't "disruptive". People place article tags in all sorts of positions. I've seen {{prod}} at the very bottom of a long article before now. The encyclopaedia has yet to break from this kind of thing happening, in my experience. The advice to not sweat the small stuff is actually good advice. (Only sweat it when there are a lot of instances of the small stuff.) If you start calling for blocks of WikiGnomes because they aren't on your particular vision of what the "straight and narrow" is, you will end up losing the benefit of the WikiGnomes' activities.

Understand the fact that not everyone agrees on these things. (There's plenty of evidence that people disagree about such things. There are style issues that have gone to Arbitration, for goodness sake!) There are, further, good reasons for placing tags in different places in different circumstances, and legitimate reasons that one size — one vision of the "straight and narrow" — does not fit all. (I place certain tags in more appropriate places than all together the very tops or very bottoms of articles, and I've been recommending such placement to others, because experience has shown that it helps novice editors who are creating new articles, for about three years at this point.)

This is strongly recommended reading, too. Further understand that style warriors make life difficult for and annoy the WikiGnomes who are trying to keep up with what this week's fashion might happen to be. That isn't necessarily the WikiGnomes' faults. It doesn't improve such a situation to start calling for blocking the WikiGnomes. It only serves to turn the people calling for blocks themselves into additional annoyances.

Also understand that the goal is to deal with the issues represented by the tags, rather than to waste a lot of time mucking about with disagreements over exactly where the tags go in the article. Again, treat Postcard Cathy in this case like the 'bot that xe sometimes gives the appearance of being. Make the articles not orphans, or not listed as orphans, and then you won't have to care where Postcard Cathy might place {{orphan}} in an article. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • At least our bots use edit summaries. If I had any of those articles on my watchlist, I would have no clue what's going on. What is so difficult about "tagging as orphan"? If there's a style policy and other people have to redo it, it's becoming disruptive. Being a WikiGnome is fine, and being a very productive one is really fine, but not responding to questions doesn't help people. I'm not suggesting a block and I don't care where the messages are placed. However, it is generally done at the top of the page and if putting the tags where most people put them and actually using edit summaries is too much for someone, then I really don't care for their edits here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If people don't like the guidelines that are in place, surely its more productive to get them changed, than to blatantly ignore them? Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I read FIES as a recommendation, not a requirement. Af least that's what the guideline says. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, " It always helps to do it, but if we want to make it a requirement, that would need to be proposed as a change in policy. DGG (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • David, as I read through this, that's exactly what I kept thinking. Look, Jenni & Ricky, I'm a big believer in edit summaries, and have been nearly 100% with them over the past three years, but it is a recommendation, after all. There are real vandals out there who are devoting their energies to destroying good work here. Cathy may appear to be a bit on the misanthropic side, but she is trying to do what she considers to be valuable work for the encyclopedia. My advice is to spend your energy fighting the good fight, not the petty fight. (And, by the way, I know what it's like to believe that everyone else is missing the point, to believe that you are the only one that realizes that this issue is important. But withdraw from it today, and then look back at it in six months. I have found that I felt rather silly about some of the issues that I thought were "vital" to properly wikipedializing.) Good luck to you. Unschool 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Gettind rid of orphans is "preferrable", but not a requirement, too! So, with which right does Cathy editwar other editors when they simply remove the tag for a "not required" Wiki polciy? Imho she should better help people to get their articles linked, instead of doing a bots job, and even worse than bots. Orphanbots don't tag surnames, for instance! And they loeave edit summaries! And anyhow, what'sa the point of bullying other people with tags thaqt are not required, making articles look horrible? What would you think about if Jenuk1985 would start tagging articles w2here tags are in the wrong place? It's not a required policy, but same rights for all! Don't you see that this uncontrolled tag business is about to go beyond being a mere nuissance, but becoming more and more of another turf of edt warring here, keeping good editors from doing more productive work? Gray62 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • That you keep talking about "the wrong place" shows that you have still failed to grasp a basic point, stated and re-stated above. There is not a single right place. As Postcard Cathy has pointed out, what there is is a succession of people with ill-considered views of the right place, each trying to enforce their narrow and mutually contradictory views of the right place. As Unschool has pointed out, there are good reasons for putting tags in various places, according to circumstances. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I obviusly raised the point of "wrong" placement of tags only as an example for Jenuk having equal right to tag articles that don't comply with that guideline. It's only a recomendation, just like Cathy's point that articles shouldn't be orphaned is only a recommendation, too. And My point is, where do we get if everybody tags articles that aren't completely in sync with rules and guidelines? Do you have any problems understanding my argument? You didn't really address it at all. Gray62 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Imho "no sweat" should apply to Postcard Cathy, too. Why does she jump into articles she doesn't know much about, and then changes features that are important for the regular editors, like the sorting keys? [She should assume that the regulars had a good reason for doing it this way. With her semseless interfering, she only distracts those productive editors! And why does she make this orphan tagging her business at all? Could be easier and faster done by a bot. She even admits it: "If I don't tag them, a bot will." So, why does she waste her sweat on that? She not even leaves spome helpful advice to the editors, who often are newbies at WP: "How to NOT get them listed as needing a tag is something I know nothing about."! And then she puts orphan tags even on a list of surnames, totally useless! No, sry, but from looking into her contribs, all I see is a user that annoys editors who try to do their best with all those tags, without really helping them one bit, and often disrupting their work, leaving them alone to deal with her mess. And who doesn't want to be disturbed, and doesn't even show the tiny bit of courtesy to add edit summaries (~95% edits without sum.). And who prefers to let conflicts escalate (with Giant27) instead of talking to him, and to leave the mess to the admins to decide on the noticeboard! Also, btw, it's rich she advises others to concentrate on serious issues - where is her serious work on an article? Afaics her actions annoyed lots of people, made their work more complicated, and so imho a call to order would be good. Gray62 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Already addressed above. Please go back and read it. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I've already read everything here. And I added some points that haven't been mentioned before. Pls adress the issues, instead of making such unhelpful comments.Gray62 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears that the editor in question has chosen to either retire, or go on a wikibreak. ponyo (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, she didn't. Check her contribs? She's still playing the human tagbot...Gray62 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolution?[edit]

So, we still have an editor who adds orphan tags and doesn't use edit summaries. Most people here seem to be of the view that it's not that big a deal (note that I as an admin don't actually need any sort of consensus to block someone, but I'm going to hang back a bit) with a few noting that it's very difficult to work with. I'm reminded of this essay (particularly the social one). The notices about edit summaries in particular go back quite a few years in fact [30][31] with the more recent ones.[32][33][34]. So I ask, since the only reason method to make people change is block, do anyone have an alternative? I asked here about why it's so concerning, but if anyone has any alternatives, I'm open. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As to the orphan tagging, I guess it's the same concern but since it was here just a few months ago with no resolution, I don't think that's changing either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, an editor continuing to be not helpful, unresponsive and often outright disruptive, especially creating totally unnecessary additional work for good editors, not participating in correcting her own mistakes, sure is good reason for a renewed review. The fact that nothing really changed since last time is grounds for concerns. And then there is the edit warring complaint against Giant 27 still pending, which raises questions if orphan tagggers have the right to insist on their tag not being removed, since its only a "recommended" policy, unlike the mandate to source facts. Imho it would be a good idea to wait for the findings in that case, before deciding this one. Personally, after having spend some time looking into Cathy's "contributions", I think it may be helpful if a "tagging ban" could be imposed, for three days or so, giving the user a chance to break this somewhat fanatical habbit, and to concentrate on more useful work instead. But that's only my personal opinion as a normal editor, of course. Dunno if there are rules supporting such an administrative order in such a case, though. Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(comment from banned sockpuppet removed) → ROUX  11:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too biased? Where is the evidence for that? Btw, Cathy seems to have been involved in tagging articles for deletion, too, so Rick may be actually be too biased for her! And WP:BITE? What does this have to do with this case? Cathy is around since 2006 or so. If anybody is "guilty" of driving newbs away, it's her, because she constantly intimidates newcomers, who just build their first stub, with her tags, but doesn't offer any help to them in coping with the alleged problem.Gray62 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore the various trolls that seem to enjoy following me. Especially ones with names like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolution will come when you change, Ricky81682. As I wrote before, please use some sense of perspective. Go back to the above, and read and think. Think, in particular, about why you're threatening to block someone whilst at the very same time stating that the issue is minor. It is minor, and you should be practicing what you preach about it. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, since I already wasted some time discussing one sockpuppet troll, is this another one, Ricky? Gray62 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if that was a serious question -- Uncle G is an admin. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(who has an unfortunate tendency to write in an overly condescending tone sometimes, I might add). Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance review[edit]

A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here. The input of everyone with any interest in the project is welcomed and encouraged. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not getting the results wished for at Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia so trying it again? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The results are very interesting - the fact there are now several pages all of which are heavily subscribed and dedicated to variation of this theme, show that a concerningly high number of people are interested in the subject or are you just criticising Tango for posting it here? Giano (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm criticizing Tango for posting it anywhere, since the sentiment of the community has already been determined. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hendyrk[edit]

Wrote a hoax article that was speedied; now he's going around adding nonsense to articles like Knoxville, Tennessee and Palafox Battalion. This the right place to report that? (Apologies; I'm new at this sort of thing, still.)

(And yes - I did hit 3RV in reverting his edits; I figured it might be a mitigating circumstance in my favor that they were obviously hoaxes.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR isn't relevant to blatant vandalism which is what that was and the user is now blocked. Next time, WP:AIV would be the best place to go. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Danke much...and thanks for the advice. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Archiving Resulting in Page Deletions[edit]

Somebody (or somebodies, I haven't looked into who yet) has configured ClueBot III incorrectly for talk page archiving across a lot of Talk: pages. This has caused ClueBot III to archive a whole bunch of talk pages at "Talk:Page Name 1" instead of "Talk:Page Name/Archive 1". As they show up as orphan talk pages, Orphaned talkpage deletion bot is deleting them. This is really content that should be kept.

I've asked both bot's operators to update their bots to fix this problem. Archiving at a non-subpage (especially in the Talk: namespace) should be pretty rare. ClueBot can easily add a check (extra key, etc.) to avoid this configuration error. Orphaned talkpage deletion bot can easily check to see if the talk page was created by ClueBot and if there exists a page at "Talk:Page Name". If so, it should flag the page for fixing vs. deleting it.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of deleted talk pages that need to be restored, moved to the correct place, and the ClueBot archiving parameters fixed on the source Talk: page. Looking at Orphaned talkpage deletion bot's deletion log, pages that need to be examined are the ones of the form "Talk:Page Name 1". It looks like about 100 pages are so. Anyone want to help? -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all the deletion were from today. I have done the ones starting with A & B (plus a couple assorted before I figure out what caused it). I'm done for the moment. If anyone else could help work this off, that would be appreciated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've shut off the bot so I doesn't delete any more pages, and I'll try and clean up the rest of the pages in a moment --Chris 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Restored all the pages, now time move them to their proper archives. --Chris 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok moved to their correct pages, and archive configs cleaned up. --Chris 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I traced back to this discussion because I was about to ask User:Ibaranoff24 why he placed these archive bots on dozens of Talk pages when, at a glance, none of them seem to be nearly active enough to require archival. I mean, I noticed it at Talk: Michael J. Nelson, which was 3.5k and got taken down to 1.5k by the bot. That's ridiculous. I changed the parameter on that page but I'm not going to manually go through a hundred other Talk pages to see if they all need fixing, too. Propaniac (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I thought it would be helpful for posts to be archived after being inactive for so long. I am sure that I posted the correct configuration. I seriously have no idea what happened here. Looks like these bots went haywire. The content is not lost - it still exists within the history. If any talk page has an archive problem, the missing posts can be added to the correct archival pages by editing the old revisions. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
Your configuration was incorrect. You set the "archiveprefix" equal to the talk page name which caused the archive page to be created at "Talk: Page Name 1" instead of as a subpage. The archive bot did exactly what you told it to do. The archiveprefix needs to specify a subpage. It has already been fixed by Chris G. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll see about fixing it later today or tomorrow. I actually check that the page name is a substring of the archiveprefix -- I guess I just forgot to check for the '/' as well. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you pls tell normal editors, unfamiliar with ClueBot, who came up with this idea of archiving talk pages, without the user's stated intent, at all? Was there a discussion about that, and consensus established? Imho user's talkpages shouldn't be subject to robot interference. And while sure some users like the help in getting their old stuff archived (me, too), I think it would be preferrable if tose users add their accountnames to a "to Do" list of the robot. Only my two cent, but, really, Cobi, where is the discussion about that bot? Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. ClueBot only archives pages that it's been told to archive. If someone wants it to archive their talk page, they have to add it's archive configuration template to their page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't not be for administration![edit]

There is no specific way I cannot be an administrator. I've gotta be there.


PRIVATE TO OTHER USERS---------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcreeves (talkcontribs) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? You may wish to read this page if you are interested in becoming an admin. Other than that, this board isn't really for very random comments.. → ROUX  04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't heard it yet - welcome to Wikipedia :) I'm glad you're so excited at the idea of helping out - give yourself a few months to learn your way around and then take a look at the Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Shell babelfish 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:RFA and WP:ADMIN. While there are no minimum requirements to be an admin, you have no chance at the current date for being one. However, get some experience in both article editing, vandal fighting, and policy discussions and come back in a few months, and apply. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
User has a curious edit history, to say the least. See here, here and here. An RFA is unlikely to succeed... Manning (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now of course not. But in the future there is no reason why not. Prodego talk 17:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth noting for the record that yesterday, this editor created several pages (one of them multiple times) which were all speedily deleted. User:Gogo Dodo then posted a {{uw-create4}} on the editor's talk page which stopped that particular activity, but the editor then replaced the talk page contents with

Please, no blocking me or I will block you from all Wikipedia.

I don't see a successful RFA any time in this editor's future... — Dori ❦ (TalkContribsReview) ❦ 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dukedom of San Donato[edit]

On the talkpage of Dukedom of San Donato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP/anon editor is alleging a bunch of problems with the article and its authors. Unfortunately, I know nothing of the article's subject, and I don't read Italian and don't have access to tools like OTRS to check what is being alleged. Can someone take a look at their allegation and raise a sockpuppet incident if appropriate and/or do something with the article. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be a fraudulent page, apparently part of the imposture of the soi-disant Prince Michael of Albany, wherein a claimant gets "recognition" of his claim in the same way that "Kris Kringle" got official recognition as "Santa Claus" in the movie Miracle on 34th Street --a scheme to which the Italian authorities seem particularly defenseless. Further investigation is indeed warranted; Wikipedia is being used to advance untenable claims. - Nunh-huh 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed ban for Elance user Tayzen[edit]

If you participated in the paid editing RFC, you might have come across User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. Unfortunately that only scratches the surface with respect to Tayzen's paid spam. You'll find the evidence at WT:WPSPAM#Tayzen. Differences from what was posted in the RFC:

  • The spam is cross-wiki.
  • Found several more confirmed and suspected paid editing jobs. These are marked new.
  • I also found several clusters of suspicious edits that look like paid editing jobs.

The four accounts above are (sock|meat)puppets operated by this user.

Furthermore, there are more jobs in the pipeline: [35], [36]. These comments suggest he has no remorse. I think it's time to use the banning policy to stop this nonsense. MER-C 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I should note that if you want to get the full text of the Elance postings, you can append a referrer string such as &rid=18J3T to the URL. MER-C 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
it is only fair to mention that the sponsor of the 2nd job listed just above --the academic bio--withdrew the offer after being informed of the circumstances.DGG (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering where that one went. Thanks. MER-C 06:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban proposal (which I'm assuming will essentially amount to a carte-blanche to indefblock all identified role accounts, such as those above, on sight). It wouldn't be so bad if the articles created followed Wikipedia policy, but blatant non-notable vanity and puff-pieces have no place here, and maybe if the editor has to return enough fees when their rubbish is deleted they'll find something else to do. EyeSerenetalk
  • Oh Good Lord. Support ban proposal/eradication project. This stuff should be discouraged and made unprofitable for the advertisers. Fine fine detective work there which deserves some sort of award. --