Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive201

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Looking to close Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates[edit]

Can we get an uninvolved admin to close this centralized deletion discussion? It's been going on for about 20 days now, and seems to have winded down. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice please article issues.[edit]

I am watching the pages of Cabuyao, Laguna (with major edits done bu User: Othanwiki2009), and Santa Maria, Bulacan (with major edits done by User:Secaundis), for almost months, and I noticed that the Santa Maria article grew into like a directory, list of dining places, telephone numbers, fare matrix for public transportation, resorts, recreational sites, transportation terminals and even directories for schools and emergency concerns. Earlier this day, I removed all possible failures that may not meet with WP guidelines: and put them all on its talk page. I notified the contributor Secaundis about this, and he said on my talk page (it is in Filipino, I warned him, and I said he should speak in English) that I am biased that I am tagging his pages not instead those long ones. I just want to know if I am doing good so far, and what action are intended for Secaundis. I am also in doubt of the authenticity of the data he inserted on the page, but when I asked him about it (I challenged him that I will insert {{fact}} on each unverified claims, those that need inline citations, but I used a generalized template {{nofootnotes}} instead so the article won't look messy; he on my talk page --still Filipino-- that he is lazy to do inline citations on those claims because primarily, they came from the official site of Santa Maria. What does it implies? Then, I am thinking if the whole article, is a copyright violation, sure plagiarism from multiple sources.)

On Othanwiki2009, he does good, but he is creating articles plagiarized, like History of Cabuyao (which I tagged earlier). I also tagged Imno ng Cabuyao, because other than the lyrics of the song, it has no information on the composer, the composer's death. Per WP:LYRICS, it falls into possible infringement. He removed the tag, and says on the article's talk page that he will look for the composer. I told him to use {{hangon}} instead, especially that the article is not on CSD but on PROD. Well, Cabuyao , Laguna, his article, turns to be copied from the sites on the Cabuyao's external links, and again, with no citation where it came from. When we say "you add the citation", does it mean that copying directly the statement/whole paragraph from the site then adding a citation falls into plagiarism?

I think they both ignored it. I tagged Santa Maria months before for its multiple issues like no footnotes, etc. but Secaundis removed it. In Cabuyao, too, Othanwiki2009 removed the tag without addressing the concern. I do believe too, that Santa Maria and Cabuyao were copied directly from a site or sites included on the external links section (since it is impossible to add figures-- where those came from?). The articles grow very long, too, and many things unnecessary appears there. I need advice what to do. Thanks.--JL 09Talk to me! 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Secaundis was already reprimanded a few months ago for his use of Tagalog. As for his removal of tags, it may be an attempt to own, but stripping the tags when their issues have not been addressed is foul. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is a mess and worse seems to have multiple sub-articles which seem to be copyvios - many many eyes needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Secaundis says he's quitting and asked for his talk page to be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam problem[edit]

There could be over a 100 articles under Category:Internet television series and it's sub categories which are not notable/spam. If any admins could go through and delete some, it would save me flooding afd.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If they qualify for speedy deletion, can't you just tag them?--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of articles, too many for one user.--Otterathome (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of these are not notable, such as Laugh Out Loud (web series), and probably would not survive AfD. However, judging by the twenty or so pages that I looked at, very few, if any, could be speedied under G11... The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a Mass AfD then? All the Best, Mifter (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Mass AFDs is that if someone finds one or two on the list you nominate to be actually notable, it will sink the whole mass of them. The best thing is to speedy the ones that lack any indication of importance, and AFD the ones that discuss their own importance, but lack secondary, independent sources required for notability. Of course, you should always do certain things WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, so please do the due dilligence on each of these, and do not automatically assume that EVERY we TV series is automatically non-notable. --Jayron32 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Go with a mass of prods, watchlist them, and in the small chance someone cares, AFD then. No need to flood AFD either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please take into account how many articles link to it when making your decision to delete. If you take the time to check 'What links here' first you won't run the risk of leaving behind a mess of redlinks in other articles. List of Web television series, to name the most prevalent one, would need cleanup after a mass delete. Anyways, I don't disagree that many of these aren't notable and don't deserve articles, I just want other editors to take their time with decisions to delete, take it case-by-case, and first take into account several other factors that may actually help in improving Wikipedia, like whether a topic needs coverage or would be of interest to readers. -- œ 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike sending articles like this to AfD, as most of the people who participate in them are the only ones interested in them. Case in point. So even if they fail all guidelines they don't get deleted unless a bold admin decides to do it.--Otterathome (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

a check of the AfD log for Aug 14 (selected as a slow day with a small log) showed: 44 delete, 23 keep, 19 merge/redirect/relist. My advice is to consider each article, look for refs, and then do what is appropriate for it, and not too many at a time--mass actions of any sort get complained about, on the assumption that one might not be giving them full consideration. Additionally, the fate of the first few is a guide for the others. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Close AfD[edit]

Resolved

Can a admin close this AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talkcontribs) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link given, that AfD was from 2006, correct link is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Hut 8.5 09:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry.... The Junk Police (reports|works) 07:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Closed as delete, with a narrative verdict. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges by User:Hu12[edit]

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident, and belongs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please read the text of the edit notice when posting here. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

External links noticeboard[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to start up an external links noticeboard, so I've set up a draft in my userspace. If anybody here is interested in issues regarding external links feel free to comment on the draft on its talkpage or edit it directly. For a noticeboard to work it needs editors to watch it and participate in the discussions on it, so I'm posting this around to try to probe if there are enough editors interested in this to get it started. ThemFromSpace 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_External_links like the spam noticeboard. They already have a group of editors who are involved. See Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Participants. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:By78[edit]

Like this?

The user is indulging in disruptive editing with [pages] including | INS Arihant page. In the Arihant class submarine page, launch is replaced with | Float-out. Bcs09 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a content dispute, and doesn't require the intervention of administrators. For my money, float out works just as well as launch, though I can see the argument that launching is the figurative activity and floating out is the literal practice which replaced launching. May want to ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships which term is more common in ship articles. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The process was a launch. Then why is getting edited the other way? I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Literally launched like the picture on the right (or sliding backwards)? Protonk (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
this source describes a float out. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The sideway launch is done mostly for lighter ships of the U.S Navy and coastguard. The heavier ones are launched backwards. The articles explains about the testing for the launch and about the next event of momentous launch. There is no official ceremony in float out of a ship or sub anywhere in the world. In this case the sub was launched by Smt.Gursharan Kaur, wife of PM Manmohan Singh. The Indian sub launch ceremony is somewhat different. Remember the coconut.Bcs09 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also note about the explanation of the reactor on the sub and how the reactor criticality is achieved.
Over the next few months, it will commence a series of full system harbour trials. The primary system, a nuclear reactor, generates the heat which drives the secondary system, a steam turbine which spins the submarine"s propeller, are to be tested separately.
First, the steam turbine is to be jump-started with shore-based supply. The next significant step will be starting up the submarine"s nuclear reactor where the zirconium rods in the core of the submarine"s 80 MW pressurised water reactor will be slowly raised, allowing the reactor to become critical in slow degrees. It will take around three weeks to go fully critical.
Only after all systems are tested, will the primary and secondary systems be mated. If all goes well, the submarine will be allowed to sail out to begin sea trials next year. Weapon trials, including the firing of its arsenal of 12 K-15 short range ballistic missiles, are the last stage of the trials before the submarine is finally commissioned to the navy by 2011.Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I should tell you that you don't need to explain to me the details of starting up a submarine nuclear reactor. But there is no way you could have known that. :) I'm only going to say two things. the first is that the details of the launch are a content dispute and should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process. The second is that what india today seems to be describing is a boat in drydock and the drydock being flooded for the launch, rather than being slid backwards. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The explanation is from the link you posted. There are a lot of videos on youtube that explains in detail about nuclear reactor refuelling. You can check it out. The launch can be done in any manner. Before the reporters were allowed in the sub has been already launched. So what they saw was the sub in water. This was later towed away to a facility about 1km from the shipbuilding center. Regarding the reactors you must read [1] that says After the first trial of the steam cycle and turbines, the Arihant will be hooked up to the nuclear reactor. The reactor"s fuel rods are currently locked and sealed. They will be unlocked and neutrons will be introduced to start up the 85 MW pressurised water reactor. The reactor will work continuously for anything up to 10 years till the fuel runs out. So I just want to point out that the reactor is sealed inside the sub and the ceremony was a launching ceremony which has been altered into something else.Bcs09 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, check it now. It has been rewritten with new inputs and links. Bcs09 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has again engaged in disruptive editing of the INS Arihant page. The users all edits are disruptive in nature removing contents from them, using harsh words against other editors and shows scant regard for others good editors.Bcs09 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban for User:Drew R. Smith[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Drew has been a constructive editor to the project in the past who has run into some problems recently, specifically allegations of operating socks used for vandalism, a dubious "hack" into his account which resulted in some deeply troubling behavior regarding Jimbo's user pages and, most recently, a pretty serious accusation that he forged an image he uploaded as a source, which took hard work by several image experts to finally discover. Please see his talk page for discussion/details about all of these issues. Through all of this, Drew maintains his innocence until cornered with undeniable truth, then conveniently admits wrongdoing and asks that we ignore his bad behavior and allow him to continue... only to have another problem inevitably pop up a few weeks later. Drew has been mostly stoic through all of this, and while admitting his mistakes when he has no other choice, the admissions and requests for forgiveness ring hollow. We have tried to reach out to him, tried to find ways to bring him back into the fold while also assuaging our reasonable concerns about his trustworthiness. So far, I'm not sure these efforts will be successful. At this point, I find that my patience, and perhaps that of the community, has become exhausted. So I bring forth a proposal to implement a community ban against Drew R. Smith, in the interest of preventing further disruption to the project. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. (I would ask that others who have been involved in this to provide additional diffs, comments and opinions. I would also ask that Drew's currently imposed block be temporarily lifted with the caveat that he only be allowed to comment here in his own defense.)

Respectfully submitted, with a heavy heart, to the community at large, Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bare faced liar, cannot be trusted. Support the ban. (but note that the faked image used as a source was done so to win an argument in the ref desk, not in the mainspace, but that doesn't excuse the conduct) ViridaeTalk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This really shouldn't be necessary. I have blocked for a month, and any further violations after that can result in a unilateral indefinite block by whatever admin happens along. The "ban" will happen when no one cares to unblock him. Tan | 39 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, really, I'm not sure I am satisfied with a month-long block. Judging from the way Drew is responding to us at his talk page, I'm not sure a month is really going to do anything. I think a more permanent action is necessary, IMO. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably. But starting a thread for a community ban is declaring war when the local police could have mopped up the problem. Tan | 39 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Tan is right here. Let's not jump the gun on this one. He's under a 1 month block, let him serve it out. If he botches up again, it'll be indefinate, and if no one unblocks him (unlikely that anyone would) we can consider it a fait accompli. No need to drag this out in this forum. --Jayron32 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone install a transclusion template for Drew to comment here? FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads. Durova306 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will, of course, accept the consensus of the community. No intention to declare war. However, having seen the drama this user has caused recently, and (if you will excuse me) the coddling and additional chances he has gotten from well-intentioned editors in the past, it's gotten to a point where I think the community-at-large needs to be aware and have a say. I warned him after his last block that any further misbehavior would likely drive me here. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I support a ban of Drew. This is unbelievable behavior. Let's just recap:
  • user asks a question at the Reference Desk
  • Drew replies, but makes a mistake
  • Other editors question his reply
  • Drew (perhaps honestly believe this to be the the case) cites a book as a source
  • Other editors question that source, noting their copies disagree
At this point, the obvious option is to check your book, if you haven't already. It appears Drew did this. But, instead of saying "Oops, you are right, I must have misremembered", Drew claims his book is different, and then forges an image to 'prove' it. The thought of someone going to such lengths to prevent admitting a simple mistake where there will be no consequences for being wrong is stunning. This is not something that someone who can collaborate with other editors would ever even think about doing. Working together sometimes means being wrong. Prodego talk 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban. For now, at least. Drew has made some unwise decisions - but I feel that this may have been more a case of him failing to understand the old 'when you're in a hole, stop digging' adage than a deliberate and malicious attempt to introduce misinformation to the 'pedia. He states as much himself. He faked an image to back up RefDesk claims that he didn't think that anyone would bother investigating - then instead of coming clean when editors took an interest, he attempted to talk his way out of it so as not to get into trouble (small lies spiralling out of control and all that). In my book, that makes him someone who screwed up and ended up looking silly in front of his peers - but I don't think that he's beyond redemption. When his month-long block expires, there will be no shortage of admins and experienced users keeping an eye on his every move. The slightest infraction or whiff of wrong-doing and I can't really see him being given another chance here. Let Tan's block run its course, then give Drew the chance to prove himself as a productive editor - or give him just enough rope to hang himself, depending on the breaks. I will unblock Drew temporarily to allow him to contribute to this thread, unless anyone objects to my doing so... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In my Defence - This is, as kurt says, lies spiralling out of control. I got blocked for the disruptions awhile back, promised not to screw up again, and went on my way. Since then, I have done nothing but help, mostly doing antivandalism stuff. I was in the process of getting a fresh start namechange. Out of the blue, stevebaker APL finds a skeleton in the closet and questions me about it. I made the knee-jerk response of defending myself and the image. Later on, I realised I had screwed up again and come clean. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It was one month ago (to the day + 2 hours). It took a long time to discover it was fake, and you were defending the image's validity as recently as 2 days ago. Hardly a skeleton. Prodego talk 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And the sockpuppetry, the IP vandalism/sockpuppetry and the disruption from you accoutn which you claim is a mysterious hacker? ViridaeTalk 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've admitted to everything I have done. Jehochman AGF'd on the main account disruption when he unblocked me, and since then I have only been constructive. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The "knee jerk" defense of your forged image is most troubling, and occurred AFTER your most recent block/warning. A simple "okay, I screwed up" would've been fine, but you dragged it out until several people had spent a LOT of time digging up proof that you had forged the image. You "came clean" only when forced to do so. This really does NOT give me great confidence in your trustworthiness or willingness to participate in this community in an honest manner. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This, on top of the "hacked account" and the sockpuppet used for vandalism... there comes a point where I can no longer assume good faith, and can no longer assume you are here to be a productive member of the community. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Looking at the whole length of Drew Smith's talk page produces one major disappointment after another. It is hard to accept any assurances now about future behavior. Deception is hard to forgive, and it should be hard. I have no objection to Drew working with Durova offline on images intended for use in Wikipedia, so long as he remains banned from Wikipedia himself. I note that Drew has a Commons account which he might be able to use for image work even while excluded from Wikipedia proper. If he did some work at Commons, his ban might be reviewed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I do? I just tried to log on at commons and none of the passwords I've ever used work there. I'm going to create a new account since I can't log onto the old one. - Drew Smith What I've done 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Creating new accounts in the midst of a discussion such as this is not wise. Jack Merridew 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Commons:User:Ender The Xenocide methinks ;) Jack Merridew 11:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • m:Special:CentralAuth suggests that Drew R. Smith isn't unified, but was created automatically, which is confusing. But I'm not sure I see what the problem is, if you are logged in at en:wp and go to commons your account gets created... as long as you don't fiddle with the password you should be fine, no need for a new account. A rename request at Commons:Changing username to usurp Drew R. from your new ID should get things sorted I would think. That's assuming you can behave yourself at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'm the one who "Dug up" the Darwin image issue. I didn't go back to it intending to prosecute anyone, I just approached it as an outstanding mystery. The Mystery of Drew's misprinted book had bugged me, and when something reminded me of it, I decided to go back and try again to solve the mystery, primarily for my own curiosity. When I'd figured it out to my satisfaction I mentioned it to Steve and Kurt because I knew they had also put a good amount of effort into it and I thought it might be bugging them as well. I didn't mean to start an inquisition. APL (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Before initiating this discussion, Vicenarian posted a very generous rehabilitation proposal (an opportunity that few editors engaging in such misconduct would receive) on Drew's talk page, and Drew promptly and nonchalantly rejected the offer that he should have been grateful to accept. And just for good measure, he reiterated his insulting, overwhelmingly debunked claim that his account was compromised (yet another instance in which he wasted numerous users' time with a hoax intended to save face).
    Drew has made it abundantly clear that he thinks nothing of the continual disruption that he causes and isn't willing to change. Even now, he's arguing that his blatant lies from the past few days—which led to still more wasted time and effort—don't count because they served to reinforce an "old" deception from less than two months earlier (which he apparently believes to be grandfathered because it preceded his "final" warning).
    Enough is enough. —David Levy 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't being intentionally ungrateful, I just didn't agree with both the block and the mentoring. Having both seemed like overkill. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Support community ban per Vicenarian and Prodego. While Drew may have been constructive in the past, his current behaviour does nothing but bring the project into disrepute. IP vandalism, sockpuppetry, and faking references to make himself look right; this behaviour is totally unacceptable. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and Drew has given us many reasons to distrust him. Not the least of these is the "hacking" of his account. →javért breakaway 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • My current behaviour? Since my block expired I have been nothing but constructive! I have tried to prove that I am trying to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. While the forgery itself was unexcusable, defending myself really isn't much of a shocker. When confronted with damning evidence, any sane persons reaction is going to be to dispute it. I'm sorry I faked the photo, wasted peoples time and energy, and I regret my choice to continue the lie. If vicenarian is still willing, I won't oppose his/her first proposal to let the block run and then impose mentoring. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, the mature person would react by saying, "You're right, I made a mistake, I am sorry," instead of going on and on defending himself with lies until he was backed into a corner. Honesty and "mea culpa" go a long way, friend, especially if you actually MEAN it. And no, I held out my hand with a carrot and you bit it off, so I'm sorry if my assumption of good faith is out the window. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do here. I wash my hands of this entirely. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The checkuser evidence put forth by Lar on his page is damning, and the fact that he still hasn't completely owned up to what he's done is disappointing. The totality of his actions make me believe that this user is going to be causing more trouble in the future. AniMatedraw 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Vicenarian, I'm sorry if you saw my response to your "carrot" as "biting the hand that feeds", but I didn't mean it that way. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban As Tan has stepped up here and blocked for one month (unblock for this thread is noted), I am content to trust the judgment of said admin. While the actions of Drew are certainly sanction worthy, a 30 day block does indeed have the effect of a 30 day ban from editing. Another long-standing editor (Durova) has offered to assist in educating Drew, and has a long history of bringing less than exemplary editors into conformity here. We claim to be a project that is open to anyone, and we need to be open to the fact that people make mistakes (a big one in this case). It's quite obvious that Drew would be on a very short leash upon his return, and I would hope that he will learn from this experience. I agree that it would be in Drew's best interests to drop ALL defensive mechanisms, with the understanding that many of us would try to explain themselves when faced with such deplorable actions. I think it behooves the project to stand behind the good faith efforts of our administrative corps, and not start dickering over points that can be addressed in the future. I support Tan's actions, and am comfortable with the sanctions currently in place, with the understanding that further action can be taken at a future date. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I never disagreed with Tan's block, which was perfectly appropriate given the circumstances. I have brought the discussion here for the entire community to decide if Tan's block is enough or if further sanction is warranted. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — Enough is enough. Drew is only vaguely penitent, has not acknowledged everything, and will be further trouble down the road if allowed. The failure to fess to the "my hacked account filed the AC case" and the other July-bullshit is of serious concern. Two CUs debunked that. Just last week he was using a spurious "Vandalism reversion dance"diff defense of his reverting non-vandalism. He's not here for much more than game playing. And Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs); hmmm? Just post-block on his talk page he has spurned offers of mentorship with "ain't going to happen".diff He claims to already know "pretty much everything ... that a mentor would be able to teach." Right. Mentorship is a gift that an experienced person offers and a foolish one snubs. Drew has pending requests to change his user name in order to 'start fresh'. Not-how-it-works. And the forgery? Appalling. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Have checked Drew's talk page. It seems he's long expended the community's good faith in him and his posts- including those in this thread - are not helping his cause. Can't be trusted to permanently reform when he's fouled up every opportunity to do so. If you've been constructive in the past, what made you go off the beaten track all of a sudden? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Only if it will help end all this drama-queen banter and get everybody back to doing something more productive instead of wasting time and resources dealing with an attention-seeking editor. -- œ 05:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - unless user agrees to mentorship, gets a serious, good mentor, and is straightened around, user doesn't belong here any more. But user doesn't want that, and good faith exhausted, so cut losses, move on. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Jack Merridew is wrong about the "vandalism reversion dance", as can be seen both from reading the whole of the user talk page discussion at User talk:Drew R. Smith#August 2009 and reading the edit history of Damien Duff, the page that was being edited at the time. Unless one is going to suggest that Bubba hotep (diff diff), Dancarney (diff), Spiderone (diff diff diff), 213.86.244.72 (diff), Morry32 (diff), and Fernandosmission (diff) are all also sockpuppets of Drew R. Smith, since they were all making the same reversions, both before and after Drew R. Smith was making them, the more obvious and straightforward explanation is that this was one editor, 90.192.190.110/90.193.153.214, being reverted by multiple other editors for adding subtle POV-pushing and sports-team-boosterism to an article.

    As third opinions, we should be careful about the accusations made by some long-time involved editors here, and independently check them ourselves rather than rushing to judgement taking the accusations on their faces. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Well this isn't a vandalism revert (end the others are about the same). Looks to me like a whole lot of poor editing and edit warring over it. He was cautioned about the editwarring and made his "VRD" comment. I called it out because it gets to Drew's view of dealing with vandalism as a game (or dance;). Anyway, that incident is small beer ;) There's lots more here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral about an immediate medium-term block, Strong Support for mentoring and a clear statement any further disruption of any kind will result in an unconditional, immediate and permanent block. I'm somewhat convinced that he genuinely wants to reform - and I think we can agree that he's done enough useful work around here to be of some value to the community. We simply have to make it crystal clear that this is quite utterly his last chance EVER. For those who don't believe that he genuinely wants to reform, well, don't sweat it - he's outta here if he makes even one more mistake. For those who believe he can do better - a crystal clear statement that his next mistake will (without debate or doubt) be the last time he ever edits Wikipedia in his entire life - should help to keep Drew thinking of the consequences each and every time he edits. As for a shorter term block/enforced Wikibreak...Meh...he either means it or he doesn't...I don't think a month off will make a difference either way...but on the other hand, there have been serious infractions, and perhaps it sends the wrong message to leave that unpunished. I don't really care either way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban - Per Ched. Per Durova. He's willing to admit his mistakes. He came clean (even though it did take him forever). He is willing to make reparations. That is the sort of behavior we should encourage on the part of the people who screw up like this. One mistake should not lead to an indefinite ban, especially when the user is willing to make amends. NW (Talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
One mistake? Lol. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's multiple events, but all that stem from the original mistake and the lying to cover that up. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you really researched this issue, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Tan | 39 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)-
(edit conflict) Well, what did I miss? This is my understanding of events: He misremembered something when answering a ref desk question. When people questioned him about it, he photoshopped a fake quote. When others questioned him about it, he lied and said his edition must be different and dug himself into a deeper hole, because he wanted to save face. He claimed his account had been hacked, similarly, to save face. Tons of people wasted time trying to track down the book. Checkusers wasted time verifying his story. Did I miss anything else major (besides the sockpuppetry, which seems to be unrelated to this case?) NW (Talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Since this is a ban discussion, I don't think we should focus on one incident, but rather should assess the editor as a whole. So, the sockpuppetry is, in fact, relevant. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)With all due respect, NW, don't forget the CheckUser-verified sockpuppetry, the vandalism under his IP, the filing of a bogus ArbCom case while his account was "compromised"... this constitutes more than one mistake. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the pointy MFD nom of WP:SERVICE and (arguably) DRV after the demise of the the Vandalism Patrol... But at this point that's just icing on the cake. –xenotalk 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - falsifying data on Wikipedia is kind of like cheating on your spouse. It may not be a dealbreaker for everyone, but it destroys any trust you had earned. Given that our readers must be able to trust information on Wikipedia (for variable values of 'trust'), we cannot tolerate at any time anyone who demonstrably falsifies data to, and this is the sad part, win an argument that isn't even in articlespace. If he is willing to do that, whether or not he has done so in articlespace is immaterial; we cannot trust that he hasn't. → ROUX  17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban, support block. Tan had this just about right from the beginning, IMHO. In the absence of any indication that Drew actually thinks this recent refusal to admit a mistake was wrong, and in light of previous history, I think the 1 month block is a good idea, for Drew as well as Wikipedia. It gives everyone, from Drew to Durova to the rest of us, time to think calmly about what we want to happen in 1 month plus 1 day, instead of making hasty decisions. If he wants to work with Durova, it can be done on Commons, but he needs to get away from this place for a while. If anything untoward happens after the block expires, he's going to get indef blocked anyway, and no one will be lobbying for an unblock, so we'd have a de facto ban. Why go thru the trouble of this discussion, and trying to tease a consensus out of it, when it will be solved with minimal effort on its own? Except for my support of continuing the 1 month block, I agree with almost everything else SteveBaker says at User talk:Drew R. Smith#Modest Proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Falsification of data is bad enough to warrant some sanction, persisting in it when caught is worse, persisting in it when the horse is already glue to the point of disrupting other matters and continuing a campaign of denial at that level can only result in a loss of a sense of AGF for anyone who deals with him, leading to disruption and double-checking of anything he does. It does not benefit anyone to have the community shoulder that burden longer. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It has long been my sense that the net effect on the project of Drew's presence is negative; he seems a nice guy, one whose deep knowledge of, for one, fish is surely a benefit, but his poor judgment prevents him from contributing constructively, a problem that is not readily overcome. Although I am not, contra Tan infra, convinced that this discussion will not produce a consensus for a ban, I endorse LHvU's proposal as a reasonable alternative should the firmer result not command the support of the community. Joe (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban if and only if Drew fess up and be held fully accountabilty for his mistakes. I would support this ban if it is discovered that Drew didn't admit everything, or he continued the disruptive behaviour. Although Wikipedia is not therapy, I don't think banning members who go through hard times is the way to show an open editing environment. The original thread that started this was very personal and I believe him when he says things just spiraled out of control. A Wikibreak is the appropriate course of action if one is unable to edit due to personal matters, and weighing Drew's positive contributions against this mess and he's a net asset to the project. I also support the compromise listed below as it seems well thought out. striking, as I didn't see Durova's objection. If one volunteers it is one thing, but editors shouldn't be forced into caring for others. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, until he takes responsibility for his actions, and seeks out the guidance of a mentor. I would have supported LessHeard vanU's compromise, but Durova has made it clear that they will not be monitoring Drew Smith. –blurpeace (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise sub-proposal[edit]

Compromise I propose the community ban takes effect upon the next sanction, after this one expires, should there be one. Durova is willing to keep an eye on the individual, and there are those who oppose the community ban for other reasons, so there is unlikely to be the absolute consensus for the ban now, but there is recognition that the next block will be indefinite with little chance of it being lifted. I suggest we formally declare that the next sanction constitutes a ban, therefore requiring consensus to have it removed rather than the de facto indef block/ban, and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I support this, assuming the one month block is reinstated when this discussion is closed. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As do I, same provision. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this also, per Lar and Vicenarian. →javért breakaway 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support LHvU's compromise with Vicenarian's addendum. I think that Drew has really abused the community's trust, and am leaning more towards an outright ban, but I'm willing to give him one more chance. If someone finds another skeleton in the closet from before the recent kerfuffle, that should also be considered grounds for imposing the ban, unless Drew admits to it before he's caught.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it took an expert quite some time to find the deception here, and Drew only came clean about all the misbehaviour when forced to by overwhelming evidence. We have absolutely no good reason (and don't bleat AGF at me; we are past that point) to believe there has been no other falsification. → ROUX  19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be indicating that the editor may have engaged in other falsifications, and saying he shouldn't be banned because of that? Maybe you could clarify a little, please? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • He's opposing the compromise, not the ban. Tan | 39 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What tan said. Bad indenting. → ROUX  20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Undeclared falsification? If Drew R. Smith admits to same during the current block then we go forward as I propose. If they do not admit to such matters by the time the block ends and is later found out, then they are blocked and community banned per my proposal. This provides both the necessary incentive in coming clean now, and the consequences of hiding it should they not. As I don't know the editor I can still AGF that they intend to be a positive contributor from now on, and this is the manner in which to ensure it. Of course, they may indeed be no further reason for concerns.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (three ECs later) Roux: That's a good point. (I'm not opposed to an outright ban. I just support this as well as a way to not founder on lack of consensus, mind you) If I may suggest, perhaps require Drew to come clean now, during the time period of the 1 month block, and anything found afterwards, whether done before or after the block, would be one of the things triggering expiration of Drew's final chance? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what LHvU said too. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My issue is the falsification. He didn't actually come clean; he was proven to have done it and then admitted to it after overwhelming evidence was presented. Without going through every single contrib one by one and checking them, there is zero chance he will come clean on anything else (if there is anything else), and there is no reason to believe that it won't happen again in the future unless there is someone checking each and every contribution. Neither of those things is practical, so as a very simple matter of expediency he must be permanently disallowed from editing because none of his contributions can be trusted in any way. → ROUX  20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems a reasonable proposal. Endorse. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. At no time have I offered to 'keep an eye' on this person. LessHeard van U ought to have consulted before attempting to speak on my behalf. He misstates the matter. Durova306 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • When you said "FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads", above, I suspect some read that as possibly an offer to work with the editor and maybe even "keep an eye" on them but given a reread I can see how that's not what it says. Please forgive LHvU for having misconstrued you. I'm sure it was an honest mistake without intent to offend. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To Lar: in light of this it's a bit of a challenge to extend that much good faith. Durova306 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I obviously misinterpreted your earlier comments. Such misunderstandings often have regrettable consequences, so I am glad to quickly note I had not intended to cast aspersions upon another editors choice of language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I, too, was under the apparently mistaken impression that Durova was amenable to something like that, given the repeated offers to help and the lemonade analogy. Like Lar said, "oops..." Tan | 39 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • An offer to coach technical aspects image restoration is nothing like an offer of general mentorship. LessHeard vanU might at least have left a notice at my user talk, to mention what he was proposing. Let's hope the confusion LessHeard caused doesn't further harm Drew's chances of retaining editing rights. Once this restoration is finished we might have a tricky time nominating it for featured picture. In future, please consult in advance before putting an offer on the table. Durova306 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Durova. It looks like this won't work unless another editor decides to keep an eye on the editor. hmwitht 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Durova (after several edit conflicts) Perhaps I took liberties with your comment here as well - if so, I apologize. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Would it be a fair evaluation to say that you are willing to work with Drew in the future, and perhaps teach him some of the proper methods he should be adhering to here? Hopefully that wouldn't leave you feeling "responsible" or burdened with the task of overseeing his edits in the future. — Ched :  ?  21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - clarified who the comment was in response to after several edit conflicts. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Due to existing commitments such as leading the technical and creative team for the media portion of the upcoming Tropenmuseum exhibit, the commitment you request would be impossible. I would certainly be willing to correspond with a mentor if one steps forward. What Drew has is trainable talent. If he focuses on developing that and putting it to good use, wonderful. Durova306 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thread closure proposal[edit]

I don't mean to step on toes here, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, I am certainly an involved admin here. But I think it's clear that we aren't going to have a solid ban endorsement, and any "compromise" won't have much official binding authority. What's going to happen is that Drew is going to serve his month, as there certainly isn't consensus to unblock him. After that, I'm pretty sure that there is enough spotlight that people will be checking contributions, references, etc - and if there's another violation of any kind, he'll get unilaterally indeffed, which will be a de facto ban endorsed by the community as no one will unblock him. None of this needs to be official, and I think the business-as-usual approach to this is the best. Technically, he'll be getting another chance, which should mollify the lenient editors here. There's no need to waste time on him any longer; let's revisit when/if we need to. Who knows if he'll even return. while I don't want to be the one to do it, someone should resolve/archive this. Tan | 39 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a lack of consensus regarding a ban. Sure, take with a grain of salt given that I support the ban, but I only see four people opposing it. → ROUX  20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, plus Durova, and probably some others found at Drew's talk page who haven't chimed in here yet. Plus, endorsement of The Compromise makes everything even more fuzzy. I mostly support a ban, too, Roux... I'm just trying to take the route that wastes the least editor time and ends up with pretty much the same outcome, whatever happens. Tan | 39 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, I think a lot more editor time will be wasted if he is allowed back in a month--people will have to be checking all his contribs. If he's not here, no contribs to check. Frankly I am astonished that a discussion even occurred. Falsifying data, abusive sockpuppetry.. what exactly does it take to get banned anymore? → ROUX  20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If I didn't have to go through an "admin abuse" merry-go-terror every time I boldly indeffed a net-negative user, I'd do it a lot more often. Tan | 39 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There is that. Sigh. → ROUX  20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems many of those opposing the ban were in support of you, Tan, and your original sanction. However, it sounds like you're leaning towards a ban yourself. If I may be so bold, I think there's consensus for a ban, and I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to close this thread and enact the sanction. Enough is enough Vicenarian (Said · Done) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, this has been bugging me since this whole sorry thing started the morning after (depending on time zone differences) the "false" Drew filed an RFArb against several editors (including Jimbo) – a "new" Drew turned up and said the account was compromised before, but "it's OK now, I've regained control". Don't we block indefinitely for that fact alone, pending cast-iron proof to the contrary and if there's any doubt remaining, the account stays blocked and they start a new one to be on the safe side? Why didn't that happen in the first place? How do we know the person who has defended this massive photo fraud is the "real" Drew. How do we know another Drew won't turn up saying "You won't believe this... I've just logged in for the first time in 6 months and..." Isn't it time to say, "Will the real Drew Smith, please stand up"? – B.hoteptalk• 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. You have a point. If, well, lying kept him from getting banned once, ... . Or, alternately, if he is in such weak control of his account that it could happen once, there's no really good reason to believe that whoever hacked his account once might not be able to hack it again and create similar havoc. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point. The account(s) should be indeffed on that basis alone. However, he should not be allowed to create a new account, due to the other issues.
It is also worth noting that those supporting LHVU's compromise were (apparently) doing so on the basis of Durova's involvement. Since she is not involved, there seems to be little/no support for that. → ROUX  21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just FYI, I don't think a single administrator on his talk page believed his "account hacked" or "my brother/housemate/dog did it" excuses, so that certainly isn't what kept him being indef'd at the time. –xenotalk 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Then why wasn't he indeffed for the abusive sockpuppetry? Seriously, what does it actually take these days? Death threats against Jimbo? → ROUX  22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, he was extended a "last chance". –xenotalk 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Which based on my reading, was approximately the eleventy-billionth 'last' chance extended. At what point will we learn? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. → ROUX  22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Endorse ban-can't be trusted to be a good editor, even with a mentor. I don't think time alone with a mentor is going to give hime an ethical compass to follow, and this seems to be what he's lacking.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support of the ban per Heironymous Rowe. No mentoring, no time restraint or anything of the like is likely to change this user. He's finished here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Full Disclosure I created an account at commons the other day. Today I went to en.wp and found myself logged on as the name I used at commons. I have accidentaly created a sock, User:Ender The Xenocide. Any sanctions that happen to me need to happen to that account as well. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How does one accidentally create a secondary account? (I note this was today, 8/25). Tan | 39 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think my creation of an account at commons automatically created one here. After creating the account at commons and uploading some pics I went to sleep. This morning the account was logged in here at WP. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is going on and on and off into tangents. Any possible way we can resolve it to everyone's satisfaction? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You might consider posting a new thread at the bottom of the noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin (who has not participated here) to close the discussion and state the result. I think the opinions are in general not satisfied with only a one-month block but there are several votes against a complete ban. I do not see any consensus for an immediate unblock. If the closer were to read all the votes and average all the desired block lengths, it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Post closure[edit]

Well, this has been closed... but what's the resolution? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Tony Sidaway closed the thread, and asserted that consensus exists for the ban. Per EdJ's comment, I think he's previously uninvolved, although he's not an admin. I guess if no one reverts that close, it was a good call, and some admin needs to go reblock. If someone does revert it, then off we go again? That's my guess. Me, I think it's as good a call as any. After factoring out the mentorship proposal I think we're left with many more folk feeling a ban was justified than those feeling that one last last last chance needed to be given. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So... since you are an admin... volunteering? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If no one else wants to do it, I suppose. I'm pretty involved though. Might make sense to wait a few minutes/hours to see if the close sticks. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't I guess. If I continued lying, I would've been blocked. I tell the truth, I'm blocked. And there was one final warning, one. I don't know why people keep saying things like "last last last warning". - Drew Smith What I've done 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Or you could jus not lie and sock in the first place... ViridaeTalk 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What a shocking concept. → ROUX  03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus for the ban, though I do support it. I've blocked the admitted sock, but certainly don't feel comfortable enacting the ban. AniMatedraw 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked for thirty days; if someone feels like being bold and indeffing, have at it. I've kinda had enough of this for now. Tan | 39 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This really shouldn't have been archived. Strong support for a ban, maybe, but what ban? Prodego talk 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I see strong support, but I also see reasonable objections. We're in no hurry here, as Drew wasn't editing outside of this thread. I agree with Tan's move, for the record. It seems the least controversial, though I'd like to see Drew under the watchful eye of a mentor if the block length isn't changed. AniMatedraw 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's where we are, and here's where I'd like to close this out. We can't come to an agreement on a ban/indef block, but we are in agreement a substantial block is in order. Consequently, Drew has been reblocked for 30 days. I'd like to again point to my proposal. Drew is encouraged to admit any past transgressions that have not come to light on his talk page, if there are any. Upon the expiration of his block, I (and I'm sure a number of others) will be watching Drew very closely. He is strongly encouraged to seek mentorship, but that is up to him. I think we have consensus that ANY further misbehavior will result in an indef block/de facto community ban, and any past misbehavior we find that has not been admitted to will have a similar result. However, until the expiration of the 30 day block, if there are no objections, I consider this matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talkcontribs) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism of a page that is likely to continue by many IPs[edit]

The Will Buckley page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop. I've been monitoring it but am about to go to work!

almost-instinct 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected for a few days, hopefully the folks who are vandalizing will have seen a shiny object and been distracted by then. In the meantime, maybe you can turn up some sources and expand the article? =) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually I'm of the opinion that the subject is pretty non-notable, just a hack. Why I cared about the vandalism, Lord only knows ;-) almost-instinct 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions requested[edit]

Resolved

Today, I marked four images for speedy deletion under G8. All the images in question were used on articles that relate to a non-notable band made up of teenagers at a school. The band and related articles have been repeatedly deleted, and the creator was even blocked once for re-creation. See editor's block log. Examples of repeated deletion of articles: example 1 and example 2. You can see a slew of deletions and other warnigns at User talk:Bsbfan.

After tagging these images for G8, administrator Xeno declined the speedies (example) saying the images were not entirely dependent on the deleted articles. I fail to see how these images could be used on any other articles, and any non-article use would be self promotion. So, I queried Xeno on this, and he suggested I take it to IfD. The action of taking it to IfD seems silly, overly bureaucratic and pointless. It's a foregone conclusion these images should be deleted.

Would another administrator please step in and delete these please?

Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is thataway. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." → ROUX  16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know what DRV is. This isn't about DRV, but thanks anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think DRV is not for declined speedies, that's what xFD is for. –xenotalk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you simply go to IFD as I suggested? That's the correct venue for having an image deleted outside speedy criteria (G8 doesn't apply as far as I can tell) and would've taken less time than making this thread. Note also File:BLADES 2009.jpg has been declined twice before (once by me, once by User:Woody). –xenotalk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Xeno, thank you for your time and attention to this. But, I was looking for input from another administrator? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And I'm sure you'll get it. My question remains... –xenotalk 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, this is probably more "bureaucratic" than taking to IfD. Here, we'll have some six-hour drag-out discussion about what rationale to use for deleting some pictures of kids trying to act cool. Look at that first one, by the way - the kid on the left. Awesome. Tan | 39 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any need of answering your question Xeno. I'm not looking for your input. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
An admin's declining a speedy suggests that there is some dispute over whether a page meets with the CSD; because our presumption is against speedy deletion, which the community requires be construed strictly, the proper venue when established editors disagree about whether a page is speediable is XfD. (In any case DRV is probably inappropriate; it has long been our practice that declined speedies go to XfD, not DRV [with the exception, I guess, of BLP1Es on which G10 is sought; I recall two that went from decline to DRV straightaway].) 99.154.83.106 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the photos could probably be deleted per WP:CHILD, given that we only have explicit permission from one of the minors (the uploader).
  • For the record: I have no issue with an admin deleting these per this, or another reason, without further comment from myself. –xenotalk 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Done, you policy stickler. I was kinda sad to delete that first one. Tan | 39 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
WEST SIIIIIIDE !! –xenotalk 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:In the news[edit]

Keep discussions together. Moved to ANI. ÷seresin 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation about abuse filters please[edit]

I was doing my blocking vandal routine, when this report popped up. Apparently it had triggered an abuse filter. I had a look at the contributions, but there was nothing there (not even deleted). The report mentioned something about a banned user; the IP address was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

I'm not questioning the actions taken against the IP address; clearly an indefinite block was expected (going by the comment left to my query). However, as I have never come across this sort of case before, I thought it best to ask here if someone could explain to me what was going on? Please use words of less than one syllable though... it is late and I am tired! (grin) Stephen! Coming... 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter 166 is apparently set to disallow, meaning it stopped the ip from making the edit, repeatedly--Jac16888Talk 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I think I'm gonna have to sleep on this, and hope my brain recharges overnight, and can make sense of any explanations! Shame abuse filters were never covered in my admin coaching... LOL! Stephen! Coming... 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically, The IP tried to make an edit, and the filter wouldn't let them. But the filter keeps a record of the attempts so people can see whos trying to make edits they shouldn't--Jac16888Talk 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
So where does the banned user come in to it, and how come the IP address gets blocked indefinitely? Stephen! Coming... 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't know anything about this filter in particular, but it seems its set entirely to stop a banned sockpuppeteer, who probably makes distinctive edits. As for the indef block, didn't actually notice that, no idea why that is, could be a mistake--Jac16888Talk 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I started checking diffs and contribs to see if the suggestion (given by the bot) of the IP being a banned user was correct (after the fact), and I couldn't see the similarities. I reduced the block to 48 hrs, for repeatedly setting off the abuse filter. Again, my apologies. And yes, this filter was set to "disallow" those edits, so none of them would show up in contribs or deleted contribs. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

When processing these sorts of AIV block requests, you can see the attempted edits that triggered the filter by looking at the edit filter log. Here is the one for the IP in question. I do not know of an 'easy' way to see the EFlog, so I just click the "contribs" link and then the "filter log" link at the top. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Still more questions, I'm afraid! Cluebot automatically reverts suspect edits, and these are still visible on the history. What is it about the edits that trigger the filter abuse that means they are removed from the page history? Also, how can these abuse filter triggering addresses be blocked without apparent warning, whereas all other users (anon and registered) need to go through due process? Stephen! Coming... 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Cannot answer the second question, but the first is simple: the edits are pre-emptied before they can be saved, which is why they never show up in the edit history. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As for the second question, some of the filters are only triggered by sockpuppets or vandal memes, so we know they've seen all the warnings. The list of filters which are reported immediately by bot to AIV is at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. When we see one of these accurately reported, then we generally block the sockpuppets without any further warning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
On exception is 58 where the filter only triggers on the most egregious childish vandalism - being ridiculously vulgar in giant capital letters with exclamation points, etc. Those don't require a lot of due process either IMHO. If someone needs to be told that such edits are vandalism, then they shouldn't be editing here anyway. Wknight94 talk 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a bit of explanation, this particular filter is designed to stop an uncommonly stubborn harassment vandal, whose easily recognised signature is his IP range(s) and the fact that every edit he makes is a random revert of his victim (me). He's been doing this for over half a year, almost every day, and he's quite easy to spot if you know the pattern. Before getting the abuse filter tuned as it is now, the only means of stopping him was to keep large IP ranges permanently soft-blocked, or to semiprotect every page I touched. But of course, the resulting blocks shouldn't be long or even indef; he hops across a large dynamic IP range. Fut.Perf. 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for everyone's explanations; it is starting to make more sense. Is there anywhere where these explanations are written up, and how administrators should deal with it? I've had a look around, and nothing really leaps out. Stephen! Coming... 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know so much about explanations, but you can get a general description of the filter at [2], that might give you a bit of an idea what they're trying to do. In this case, it would have at least let you know who the banned user was. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that! It would be handy to have some form of explanation in the blocking section of Admin Coaching; I think I'll raise the question there. Stephen! Coming... 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Request for comment I've popped a comment in the admin school for blocking about abuse filters. However, as there is not much traffic there, I thought I would ask here for anyone to come and contribute. Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 09:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK announces flagged revisions[edit]

As reported by the BBC [3]. Now call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't that be announced prominently on-wiki? Or has it been announced prominently in a place that no-one will notice? DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the bbc is exaggerating slightly, all that's happened is they've added flagged revs to a test wiki, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-24/Technology report--Jac16888Talk 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Mike Peel (who he? - ed.) told the BBC it would start in the next couple of weeks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Missed that, User:Mike Peel apparently. Seems unlikely they would start the trial when they haven't even run it on the test-wiki yet. It probably is just the bbc misinterpreting, I'll ask Mike--Jac16888Talk 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This was in NY Times as well, and reported by many other news outlets.[4] Siawase (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And the NYT is attributing it to Foundation officials - do the Foundation not realise that they can talk to us here, instead of having to rely on the press to let us know what they are doing? DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia techblog notice, which I suspect would be considered more or less official. This might be a good chance to see how they work and provide constructive critique. Risker (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, they did announce it prominently where no-one would notice it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an old story that's cropped up again due to the NYT article (which was unprovoked by the WMF, as far as I can tell). Wikimedia UK have certainly not been pushing it, or announcing it - the press have been coming to us. As I've been saying, the trial 'will start in the next "couple of weeks"' (based on information from Brion on wikien-l). Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that next time you give a quote like that to the BBC you could mention it on-wiki as well? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Could I please second this? It is not particularly helpful to get these announcements in the press, filtered through so many levels of abstraction that one is left guessing what the original announcement was, when the press statement (or some equivalent announcement) could have been made available here. I'm not singling you out specifically, Mike - but too often I read in the press that "Wikipedia WILL be doing X, according to Wikipedia", when I've never seen X discussed onwiki in the slightest. Far too often, in fact, it is specifically on the subject of flagged revisions. Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Where? Mike Peel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suspect that might not be practical -- how often would such a notice have to be given, and where? Sounds to me like the media took a quiet "we're sorta testing this" and turned it into "WIKIPEDIA ROLLING OUT FLAGGED REVISIONS TOMORROW"... admittedly, the latter is a more eye-catching story, even if it doesn't seem to be the case. Testing of technical features is not a policy announcement; even if we don't want flagged revisions, there are doubtless other MediaWiki wikis that do. Granted, of coruse, that I could be missing something and haven't been interviewing any "officials" lately. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you thoroughly read the thread and links above? The Wikimedia techblog notice (something of which I was previously unaware) says "...before we prepare to deploy these extensions on English Wikipedia in the coming weeks". DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
...good point. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I should explain that nothing I've said today is new - it's all been based on what information I've gathered from on-wiki, and also from the mailing lists. There was no announcement of any sort. I've also basically been fire-fighting - the press have been phoning the UK press phone, and I've been answering their questions to the best of my ability (and coping with their various misunderstandings as to what role I have/WMUK has with Wikipedia). I'd also add that the decision to trial flagged revisions is an en.wp decision by the community. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So the techblog announcement isn't an announcement? Could it be that careless wording there triggered these stories and enquiries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sort of. Brion has been periodically updating for a while now, saying that things would be rolling toward implementation around this time (it actually fell a bit behind schedule). So in that context, the meaning was clear; the community made the decision a while ago to do a trial, so it's just an announcement that it's actually going to be implemented soon. But much of the press seems to have the idea that this was a top-down decision.--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The community has approved Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions (almost) as written, that is: globally passive and 'active' (i.e., with precedence of the latest flagged version) only when admins specifically 'turn it on' (flagged 'protection'), which is subject to the protection policy, and nothing more: no flagged revs for all blps as much of the press says. Maybe a communication glitch ? Cenarium (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Mike, sorry about not answering your question ("Where"?) earlier. Needless to say, there are about a dozen random "announcements" pages scattered around, almost all of them are totally obscure, and most are unmaintained and unwatched - which makes your question tough to answer at present. Probably we need someone to start a new page for such announcements, and since I am someone, I'm going to see about mocking up a suggestion for an appropriate noticeboard. I'll make a prominent announcement when I've got something worked up. Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Where will you make this announcement? --John (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest the Signpost suggestions page a good place to announce breaking news?--ragesoss (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's breaking news, it should go on a wiki-wide Watchlist notification or top-banner. Not that many people read the Signpost compared to the number of editors or even active editors. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if we something like this or not, but it might be nice to have a page (similar to the ArbCom announcements page) for announcements from Wikimedia Foundation folks. These could include formal announcements like "We are now doing X...", but also responses to press reports that might confuse editors here. Obviously press stories about Wikipedia (and a lot of other things) can sometimes be a bit "off" (for a variety of reasons), and it might be good to offer a space on en.wikipedia where Wikimedia spokespeople can weigh in and/or clarify certain press reports. Lots of people would watchlist such a page, but we could also obviously cross-post important announcements to this noticeboard, the village pump, etc. Just a thought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think that it's a fine use of a site notice. Although I never miss an issue, The Signpost isn't read by most. hmwitht 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
For community announcements that aren't important for readers, I think a talknotice would be optimal. Cenarium (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Flagged revisions was approved by "80% of 259 users" according to the BBC piece. That's 207 users, out of thousands, who are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia. Just saying... -    allstarecho     01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of users are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia? More like hundreds of thousands, or millions, actually. Yes, we have that many vandals. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least someone official could have put it up on {{cent}}. And when exactly did the community agree to this? I thought we only agreed to a trial run. Maybe there was something in the mailing lists. I don't watch those :( . Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is being discussed in the press is in fact a trial run, as J. Wales remarked here, "It is a test." There is a lot of support for flagged revs being implemented in at least some form, so presumably if the test is at least somewhat successful we will continuing using them in some fashion. If, for whatever reason, it proves a major or medium-sized disaster, I don't believe there is anything which precludes the en.wikipedia community from saying "this is absolutely terrible, shut it down now." I'd say the most likely outcome is that flagged revs won't end up in the trashcan, completely unused (as some editors want), but nor will they be turned on for the entire project (as some other editors want). We'll end up somewhere in between those two extremes, but there will be a lot of debating, anger, and doomsday predictions before we get there. I'm sure it will all be perfectly goddamn delightful! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's a test. FlaggedRevs is still an affront to IP users and new users alike and isn't going to do anything but provoke more "vandals", who were formerly good-faith users whose sourced information is now being obligated to run thru Azorius-style crap before it gets made live, thus acting as an effective discouragement for new editors. Flatly, there isn't gonna be enough editors to make FlaggedRevs viable on large projects (such as en.wp). -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
How is allowing IP and new editors to edit pages that they can't current edit (semi-protected/full-protected pages) an affront to them? Have you read the proposed configuration, which is simply to replace or augment current protection with a flagged protection system? This is why it's been so long coming, as I understand it, because the extension has had to be rewritten to work in the way we've asked for it to work. It's just a trial, it isn't (zOMG) FlaggedRevs in its conventional sense - don't really see the issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh cool thanks for clearing that up. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added the Signpost series template to the right for those editors fuzzy on what happened when.
Note that the proposal presented to the community states "there is no consensus to use an active implementation (in which new edits are not shown to readers unless made by or flagged by trusted users) for all biographies of living people or an arbitrary subset of them, preemptively." It certainly sounds to me from the media coverage that someone in the Foundation is intending to 'use an active implementation for all biographies of living people, preemptively.' If that is the case, then the community has been deceived and the Foundation is simply hiding behind the poll to do whatever it wants. But let's see what the actual implementation is before we break out the pitchforks. - BanyanTree 09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Banyan, I got the same impression... —Ed (TalkContribs) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New Wikimedia blog post on flagged revisions. Relating to my above stated concern about a disconnect between what the community approved and what the media says will be implemented, Erik Moeller states:

This post originally said that all biographies of living people would be “flagged protected”. This is not correct. The current proposal is for for articles that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (where new and unregistered users cannot edit) to be eligible for the new protection model, which allows for more open editing. I apologize for the confusion; thanks to Sage Ross for the quick correction.

I am satisfied. - BanyanTree 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Northwest Airlink Carriers[edit]

this template has been on speedy for a couple of days and no one has assisted it. HereFord 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it, to preserve the history as best as possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter[edit]

We really need to set up a system for monitoring the people creating these. Dragons flight and I have been doing it, but with DF away I am becoming overwhelmed. There needs to be a process to review the filters. For example, there was a filter blocking from linking to uncyclopedia, a task which a) has no consensus and b) is a job for the spam blacklist. There absolutely must be a process created to review filters, perhaps similar to the bot approvals group, except the filters would be reviewed post fact, not pre-approved. Does anyone have any ideas? Trying to keep edits from hitting the condition limit (the point where the filters give up because there are too many checks being applied) requires removing checks, but removing filters is like trying to stem a massive flood single handedly, and every time you remove on, it's sponsor is going to want it back. I need there to be a process. Prodego talk 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Clear case of the general idea of abuse filters being applied before any real though was put into the overall impact of their being implemented. Some front-loading of this application would have been far, far preferable. Now we're left with a serious mess of a situation. Good luck fixing it. It's not going to be easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, the blacklist disallows all insertions of uncyclopedia. The filter (103) however, was designed to only block the insertion of uncyclopedia links by not-autoconfirmed editors. XLinkBot would not see these links (when in templates), or ignore these (when used as 'references', e.g.), so the editfilter could certainly help there. It is unfortunate that the system is so sensitive that its use is seriously diminished. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO, totally inappropriate to disallow adding a link by non-autoconfirmed editors, while admitting that there are legitimate uses and allowing autoconfirmed editors to add them. Prodego talk 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that new filters should be discussed first if possible (which leads of course to a problem on how to discuss non-public filters effectively). A group of pros like DF or Prodego that work similar to BAG and review new filters first is quite a good idea to avoid bad filters screwing up the 'pedia. Maybe Werdna (talk · contribs) can code some sort of more sophisticated comment system to the whole thing which can then be used to discuss those filters with other AF editors; the current way to communicate in filters using the "notes" field is not really a good way to do it. Regards SoWhy 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

Resolved: Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell Talk 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been vandalized by ip address users for the past few days and I have no clue why, but I think it's enough to protect the page. --Fire 55 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

School's back in. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. If you'd like, you can take requests for protection here in future - sometimes it's quicker, sometimes not. MastCell Talk 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright footer change[edit]

I'm proposing to add microformats to the Copyright footer we have at the bottom of the pages. This would help make the pages detectable as Creative Commons freely licensed content to search engines that support this (Google advanced search for instance). The proposed change is listed at MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyright. I will execute this change soon, unless someone presents reasons why the change is a bad idea. Next, there is also some discussion on the Village pump, on wether we should add a CC badge icon, and wether we should add further microformat credentials. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV??[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. Another reason I should be mopped... ;) Vicenarian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been beating back a persistent vandal for ten minutes now... Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Database issues?[edit]

Good afternoon. USS_Beverly_W._Reid_(APD-119) article seems to be appearing and disappearing each time I click on it. There is no deletion log and the history page disappears too. Wikipedia acts like the article has never existed. I initially noticed the problem when I saw a link in recent changes for a new page. I clicked it and Wikipedia said the page doesnt exist. Not that it had been deleted, only that it didn't exist. I clicked back to Recent Changes, found the link again and clicked it and the article appeared. I then clicked History and it said the article didn't exist again. So I clicked the article link, same thing. I hit refresh several times and the article appeared again. Clicked refresh again, it was gone, again and it was there. Since this time, about 2 minutes ago, it seems to stay. Is something going on with the database?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Works for mexenotalk 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I am seeing edit histories disappearing. The top two items on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotmail&action=history disappeared for about 2 minutes.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Works for me too. But it is so weighed down by unnecessary date links that it's probably sunk. I suggest you clear your browser cache and - if your machine is anything like mine tonight, reboot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's cache because on the [[5]] page, the first time I saw the page it had the 2 reverts. It wasn't until a later time that 1 revert disappeared from the top. If it was cache, it would have been the other way around. I would have seen 1 revert, then 2, then 1 again.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever issue the database was having appears to have been cleared. Probably just an overload. You might have more luck at WP:VPT next time, where some of the more tech-savy users hang out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps try WP:Village pump (technical). hmwitht 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Way too much of a burden![edit]

User:God"Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:God. If in doubt, please verify that "God" exists." @harej 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But well...God has been blocked indef:
20:10, 27 January 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs | block) blocked God (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) (unblock | change block)
So we won't see Him (or Her) edit Wikipedia under their name I guess Face-wink.svg SoWhy 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is blocking God a form of sacrilege? @harej 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, because She can still edit anonymously. Rd232 talk 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't block someone that doesn't exist. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 09:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This block appears appropriate under both Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names and the Third Commandment (second for those of the Catholic or Lutheran faiths). --Allen3 talk 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And also the 2nd Commandment (Catholic 1st) if you consider a User:God to be idolatrous. @harej 09:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki is too wishywashy on the topic. Cygwin is much more authoritative:

$ su god
su: user god does not exist

++Lar: t/c 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But my compiler tells me that GOD is real... at least unless I use IMPLICIT NONE. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the older generation tends to be more religious than their younger counterparts. @harej 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply the wrong username. Everyone knows that our supreme pastifarian would use User:FSM or User:Flying Spaghetti MonsterTheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Durzo Blint redirect[edit]

Can someone create Durzo Blint and redirect it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Night_Angel_Trilogy#Durzo_Blint ? I got a local/global blacklist error. Archer1742 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs). Killiondude (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GFDL-only image and media uploads[edit]

I am proposing that GFDL-only image and media uploads after a certain cutoff date be speediable. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#GFDL-only_uploads, and not here. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3D-holoshow[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted per G11 -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. This article appears to have been created solely for promotion of a product by Ryrocks, which looks like a spam-only account.

I guess I should have filed an AfD, but the process looked a bit too intimidating. :)

Nailbiter (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per G11. Tan | 39 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles: ChildofMidnight topic banned[edit]

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Doctor Steel (band)[edit]

Before I put myself on a Toy Soldier hit list (which would suck, a good friend is one and he knows where I live), I'd appreciate some other thoughts on this please. We seem to have a Doctor Steel article - again - this would be the tenth different title, since the others have all been salted. (The title Doctor Steel was salted as well, I believe, but Ched Davis (talk · contribs) edited through the protection to create a redirect to the new name, stating that he felt the band has improved in notability.) Background: the Toy Soldiers (Doctor Steel's fans) have been trying to get an article on Wikipedia since 2007. Notability has always been an issue; he's an underground performer, with some glancing blows such as an appearance on Leno (his name wasn't even mentioned) and a couple of bloggy interviews. This deletion review is the best indicator of what's been going on, and recommends userspace drafts before recreation. That was bypassed here. The new article has one reference that might actually be a reliable source; the rest are blogs or from the artist's own sites. The creator has worked on nothing but Doctor Steel articles, and the other major contributor requested in a deletion review today that a deleted and salted article on one of the good doctor's albums be userfied, noting the request came from a "representative of TSU" - likely "Toy Soldiers Unite," the fan club. Because I've been watching this, and involved with it, for quite a while (and because I have work to do), I think I should probably not be involved in dealing with this. Mostly because I've got an itch in my deleting finger. I'd appreciate if some other admins could look at this and see if I'm being too harsh, or if this is something we should look at more deeply. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I want to thank Tony for asking me to comment here. Now, admittedly I don't have a strong preference one way or the other on this subject. The redirect that I created was done so upon request, when another respected editor asked me to speak with the person who was requesting it. The request was actually for about 4 or 5 different redirects, of which I created only the one that I thought most relevant. I looked at some of the history, some of the sources, and looked through several "Google searches" before doing so. Now, that said, I admit that most of the sources for the article are ... ahhh ... less than "prime" sources. It's also a ... ahhh ... rather ... ahhh .. unusual genre of music in my own personal views and tastes. However, I believe in this project as a "sum" of knowledge, so I did recreate the redirect. It appeared to me that it had been about a year since the last deletion discussion, and consensus can change. Looking at WP:BAND, I personally believe this is a borderline case, and have no objections to us having an article on him/them. Most likely, WP:AFD would be the place to continue the discussion, but I certainly wouldn't CSD it. All that said ... I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other on the article, although in general I would prefer to keep any content that wasn't a violation of policy. (NPA, etc.). — Ched :  ?  19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Every AFD run on articles related to this person/band have been about copyvios. There has not been a full AFD run (near as I can tell) which addresses the issue of notability. Looking at old (now deleted) versions of this article, this article looks substantially different from others, based on that, and the fact that no full AFD has been run which has addressed the issue of notability, the best option would be to actually run a new AFD. Old AFDs under any name should be linked to it. Be as detailed as you can in analyzing the sources, so people know about the reliability of such sources. If you want to make a final decision on this, a fresh AFD seems the best way to handle it. --Jayron32 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Jayron's suggestion for another AfD is probably the best idea. Also, I've moved Doctor Steel (band) to just Doctor Steel, the "(band)" being unnecessary. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with an AFD - despite the long-term campaign of spamming Wikipedia, the latest version of the article still lacks independent and reliable sources which cover the topic of the article in any detail. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'd rather that someone else take on an AFD, but there seems to be some opinion it's needed, so I'll see what I can do. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on List of former Muslims article[edit]

Resolved

There has been persistent vandalism on the article by a user Dhard2009. He has been warned many times in the past, to no avail by myself in his talk page. He keeps re-inserting a non notable figure Charles Wardle to the list, even though this contravenes WP:LIST. Someone please block this guy. SantiagoMatamoros (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • He's certainly persistent, I'll give him that. Blocked. Black Kite 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages[edit]

A user has taken to using the talkpage of Hindi, Talk:Hindi as a forum for asking for Hindi translations and spellings.[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. While I realize that the motives of the user are good, these comments do nothing to contribute to the article Hindi. If the user wants to find people able to provide translations of transcriptions, the first step would to be to post such requests at the talk pages of the articles where the Hindi version is needed. Another possibility would be to use WP:LANGUAGE or perhaps better, WP:INDIA. The user could also get in direct contact with Hindi-speaking users. If we start to use talk pages for articles of languages as places to request translations to or from that language, we could soon see the talk pages of larger languages turning into translation forums. Even if the translations are to be used at Wikipedia, I would say that any of the options I've mentioned are better than using talk pages of language articles. In my understanding, talk pages should be used to discuss how to improve the articles to which the talk pages refer.Jeppiz (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or use the language reference desk. Graham87 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That is an even better option, thank you. At any rate, I feel that the requests should not be posted at talk pages of language articles.Jeppiz (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. So collegiality and cooperation are important. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a little backed up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when you wrote this, there were only 114 pages there - the number is frequently higher. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've hacked away it for a bit, there should be a little less than 75 there now. TNXMan 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Eek, I didn't realize it was pretty small then. :) Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked ahead of the start of the school year with the optimistic hope of attracting constructive contributors... –xenotalk 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all London schools and libraries. This is a farce.

What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their Schools outreach project. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Wikipedia should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

London schools and libraries access the internet through teh London Grid for Learning, and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of