Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228

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

Noticeboard archives


Creation of page[edit]

Resolved: Joseph Fox 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi could you create MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-AFC-wrong-title and put inside text from Petrb (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 DoneJoseph Fox 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


I really have problems with this user, he is certainly angry because I listed the page he created at AfD. I did that with a reason: no relevant sign of notability. However, he started fighting with me (and even threatening me that I will be blocked), I just ignored that, and gave him friendly advice to come down. He constantly removes AfD tag, admins please tell me what to do! Alex discussion 12:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to set him right. If it's any comfort, he's now yelling at me instead :( Favonian (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this ANI after already reaching out to them ... they need a lot of guidance apparently (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have unfortunately provided them a 24hr break from the project while they read, and we clean up the carnage. Aleksa ... if there are more issues, either let me know or bring this to WP:ANI ... and don't forget to notify the other editor whenever they are brought to AN or ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother, he's  Confirmed as indefinitely blocked user Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs), along with about a dozen others which have just been discovered and blocked. –MuZemike 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request - review[edit]

I'm not familiar with the situation here, and the protecting admin apparently hadn't responded, could another admin that might have some familiarity with this area take a look at the request to unprotect Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia made here. Thanks! Skier Dude (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFUP?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitelisting of article titles written in Thai alphabet[edit]

Why article titles written in Thai alphabet being SALTed? This would likely create them as redirects. Thai + Thai article titles are not constituted as mixed script. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I would request creating these articles as redirects:

เพลงชาติ/เพลงชาติไทย redirects to Thai National Anthem
เซเลน่า โกเมซ (link) redirects to Selena Gomez (In some Thai-language channels, "เซเลน่า โกเมซ" is used aside from using Selena Gomez name in Latin.)
กองทัพบกไทย redirects to Royal Thai Army
กองทัพไทย redirects to Royal Thai Armed Forces
กองทัพเรือ, ราชนาวี redirects to Royal Thai Navy
เดมี่ โลวาโต้ (link) redirects to Demi Lovato (In some Thai-language channels, "เดมี่ โลวาโต้" is used aside from using the name in Latin.)
ยิ่งลักษณ์ ชินวัตร redirects to Yingluck Shinawatra
กองทัพอากาศไทย redirects to Royal Thai Air Force
Thank you.
Since this is English Wikipedia, and English is written with the Latin alphabet, why would be the reason for us to have redirects in another language, written in another script? Should we have redirects in every other language here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to imagine this has been discussed before, but the most recent thing I can find is this essay. I wonder if there's more current guidance on this? 28bytes (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
We commonly create redirects from the official name of a non-English entity to the English title when the page is at that title. For example, someone might encounter that title and search for it, not knowing what it means; if we have it as a redirect, that person will go directly to the correct page instead of having to wander around for a while. Nyttend backup (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really guidance, but Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 30#13 Април dealt with the same issue relatively recently. Anomie 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I know redirects are cheap, but this seems a pretty silly idea, that people would come to English Wikipedia and expect the search engine to support foreign language inputs. Rather, aren't they better off going to the Wikipedia in that language, and using the Interwiki link? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be: if the language of the redirect has a strong tie to the target page, it's OK, otherwise not. E.g. a Thai redirect to Thai National Anthem would be fine, a Thai redirect to Selena Gomez, not so much. This seems like a reasonable balance to me. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not unreasonable at all, but (IMHO), still somewhat silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist about this. The blacklist allowed me to create เพลงชาติ with my non-admin account, but not เพลงชาติไทย. 28bytes (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of really random Selena Gomez redirects were recently deleted at RfD here (Lao, Arabic, and Tamil, among many other languages); they were created at AfC/R, and the only one that wasn't was the Thai one. This might explain what happened. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think these are just inadvertent blacklist victims, not salted... I've asked User:NawlinWiki to take a look since an NW edit is what blacklisted these. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet query[edit]

I am just wondering, is it worth opening\reopening a SPI case if those suspected sockpuppets have not edited in over two years? Simply south...... playing tunes for 5 years 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say no because the result will be stale. But if the sockmaster or its associate puppets become active again then list out the entire list (including those that aren't active). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sure, while it will acheive nothing in terms of improving the encyclopedia, it'll give at least a few editors a laugh. And isn't that what's really important? Egg Centric 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A checkuser would be stale, yes; but at least the behavioral evidence can be better scrutinized by some more experienced eyes, no? -- (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on how serious the misbehavior is. If someone was banned three years ago, and now there is a newly registered editor who is behaving himself or herself and editing properly and avoiding the behaviors that he or she got banned for, it sometimes may not be worthwhile to spend a lot of time and effort worrying about whether the two users are the same or not. If the editor is seriously misbehaving again, then it may be more worth people's time to make the connection so that everything can be taken into context. But it should always be remembered (including by me) that the whole back-office apparatus of SSI, ANI, dispute resolution and everything else exists to serve our primary purpose of writing an encyclopedia in a collegial atmosphere, and not as an end in itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As one of the 'oldies' of the project, I too sometimes forget that SSI and RFCU are now SPI. But to clarify, I think Newyorkbrad meant SPI when he said SSI. With regards to Simply south's complaint, if you have in mind a casual editor, then I would not open an investigation, because an account that edits infrequently has probably not generated a broad enough contribution history to make a link - and, of course, checkuser data will be unavailable. If an account has begun to be considered established, but you suspect it may be tied to a long-term (but inactive) sockmaster, perhaps an investigation could be worthwhile; there have been cases in the past of editors becoming well-established, and even being elected as sysops, before it later became apparent that they abused multiple accounts in the past, and did not disclose this to the community. In general terms, if you won't name the account, I guess the answer is: it depends. AGK [] 11:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it was not a complaint, just a question. The sockpuppets I am thinking were only active very briefly. The master in question I am thinking about is Loshgr. There hasn't been any recent activity, the last one in the suspected accounts dating back to September 2009. Simply south...... playing tunes for 5 years 15:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


This user first vandalized vandalized Newsmax, I reverted, and they vandalized again. I reverted and warned and then they vandalized my personal page. Please block. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User has been notified. They have also reverted the personal attack on my page. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. 28bytes (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Not quite sure I understand the enjoyment that some people get doing that. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles should give you some insight; if not, it'll still make you laugh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Made my day, you have. Thank you. :-) — Coren (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana[edit]

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana?

Please also close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flora85, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trinidad and Tobago/On this day, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eu-151. The MfDs have been open from two weeks to a month. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed the Equestria Daily one. I dont feel qualified to close the rest.--v/r - TP 15:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, TParis. Cunard (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I got Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Qwyrxian! Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), for closing two other MfDs. Save for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eu-151, the other MfDs listed here are closed. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana[edit]

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana?

Please also close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flora85, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trinidad and Tobago/On this day, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eu-151. The MfDs have been open from two weeks to a month. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed the Equestria Daily one. I dont feel qualified to close the rest.--v/r - TP 15:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, TParis. Cunard (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I got Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Qwyrxian! Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), for closing two other MfDs. Save for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eu-151, the other MfDs listed here are closed. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Abusive sysop[edit]

A proposed amendment to several arbitration cases[edit]

A motion has been proposed that would amend several decisions made by the Arbitration Committee and the community over the past several years. It would replace the remedy originally issued—one that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area—with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from Blocked user[edit]

User:George SJ XXI was blocked several months ago by User:Beeblebrox for persistently advocating an opinion and general disruptive behaviour both to one specific article, its talk page, and his own usertalk page. The article in question Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (talk page) states that Wellington is "Anglo-Irish", although George persisted in stating that he was "Irish" despite consensus both on Wiki and from various sources to the contrary. Since his block there have been no further disruptions until the past few days (history) when IPs from the same ISP (iiNet) started changing, undoing and reopening discussions on the talk page regarding the matter. This leaves little doubt that it is George again, up to his old tricks. I have flagged each message as an {{spa}} (which you may note he pointlessly reverted as "vandalism" a couple of times) left warnings and listed the IPs on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of George SJ XXI. Have spoken to Beeblebrox who dealt with the matter originally suggests requesting action, possibly a rangeblock. I think also semi-protection of the article in question for a few weeks might be prudent, and not unreasonable, as these iiNet IPs are clearly dynamic, and change daily, sometimes twice a day, it seems. Other than that, what with the main account being blocked, I do not know what else can be done to discourage this idiot from continually pursuing his own ends.

I have not left a {{subst:AN-notice}} anywhere as I do not know if it is required for sock IPs.

Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, a range block is not an option in this case. He is using some mobile ranges and other heavily used ISPs (many of which have administrator accounts editing via them). That said, I did find an alternate account: GSJ XX1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) of his which is now blocked. Sorry, there really isn't a whole lot that can be done besides playing whack-a-mole. Tiptoety talk 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware most Aussie ISPs are dynamic and that it might cause a problem for more than it's worth and blocking each IP would be futile seeing as he only has to reset his modem. Would semi-protection of the article appropriate for a month, at least? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well...I am only seeing a few edits a month by George SJ XXI and his socks which I'm not sure justifies semi protection at this point. If you can convince another administrator otherwise I won't throw a fit though. ;-) Tiptoety talk 01:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That's okay, I can wait.. something tells me this muppet will dig his own grave, soon enough. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Request temp block of (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for disruptions to Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Massive amounts of redirects abused[edit]

Removal of insult from edit summary[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure whether it requires mere revision deletion or something stronger, but I want to request an admin please hide this edit summary. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Edit summary revdeleted. Slurs are called slurs for a reason; using one in an edit summary is just not on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No great cause for concern, I think, but I feel this particular use might be stretching RD2 a bit further than it should, even taking into account that this is a BLP. — Coren (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm, really? To me, it seems the same as revdeleting an edit summary calling a Jew a "kike" or a black person a "nigger": namely, it's extremely insulting, not fit for company that has any sensibilities, and it reflects poorly on us to have such things hanging out at the top level of page histories. Is it your feeling that "fag" isn't insulting, or at least not as strongly as racial slurs are? Consider also that the user in question has been blocked for repeated hate-speech-esque edits to the same article; his intent was quite clearly to insult and belittle. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not making a comment on "fag" itself, or of any relative offensiveness. I'm just not certain that "just an insult", however poorly worded, justifies revdel (unlike, say, accusations of criminal behavior for instance). I'm thinking that was intended more for "X rapes little children"-like slurs (as we have often seen in the past).

I'm not making a statement about the propriety of your revdel, really, mostly just thinking out loud whether we are being too liberal with the use of the tool in general. — Coren (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would always remove hate speech and very offensive comments about women (never come across one of a woman disparaging a male in similarly offensive language, but I suppose it happens), because both of those have a threatening and humiliation aspect that 'you write like a camel, smell like one too' doesn't really have. That said, there is a current request on WP:ANI to take action because someone called Sarah Palin an airhead, so I do see your concern. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there incidentally nothing actually in the cited source wherein he explicitly says he's gay? Evidently somebody did realise this; I misunderstood the linked revision to be the current one. Sorry. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Good call; no need for petty bureaucracy here. If someone says that they're black, that does not justify someone referring to them as a nigger. If someone says they are gay, that doesn't mean it is acceptable to call them a fag. We should have zero tolerance for this type of thing.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Coren: I must say that I disagree. My view is that we currently draw a sensible line between what is deserving of RevDeletion and what isn't. If the edit is unconstructive, it should be reverted, and if it is also flagrant it should also be removed from the edit history: our readers are becoming increasingly aware that we keep a history of article edits, and our tolerance for drivel in the history should be decreased accordingly. A professional organisation would not allow the exterior of their office to have "pen1s" written over it, would it? If you're subscribed to Oversight-l, there's a discussion on a similar topic (suppression v RevDel v no action) that you might be interested in. AGK [] 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone, please close this RFC[edit]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence - discussion on this issue has been going on for months and it would be nice to have an uninvolved admin close the RFC. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? :( –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I had intended to close (as a non-admin), but felt the right outcome involved a rename so I commented/!voted instead. It is a fairly simple case folks. Pretty short, pretty much one-sided. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Closed] by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Closure of merge discussion[edit]

Can someone please review the merge discussion at Talk:Yadava#Proposal_to_merge_articles_Yadav_.2C_Ahir_and_Yadava, given that the proposer has withdrawn. I will do my best to notify all involved. Fowler&fowler has removed the template from Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving Sfan00 IMG back file mover?[edit]

Resolved: User right restored. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure where to place this, as there really isn't a good board for file related stuff, but here goes:

Sfan00 IMG, one of our more prolific file gnomes, apparently had and then lost the file mover user right. I'm not entirely sure of the story behind this, but I'd like to see if there is a consensus for letting him have the user right back. My reasoning is simple: Sfan00 IMG has demonstrated, through several hundred recent rename requests (the ones that I haven't already done are still in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming), that he a) knows which files are in need of renaming, b) knows how to choose a suitable new new name, and c) knows all the steps in the renaming process (in a public IRC conversation where I was unaware that the person I was speaking to was Sfan00, he described these steps and lamented that too often people missed some of them, mainly updating articles with the new file name).

In short, he's more than qualified for the user right, and I see no reason why he should be relegated to filling out requests for other people to act on (especially since most of the 200+ people with the file mover right either haven't noticed that a backlog has popped up or noticed and decided to ignore the fact).

Is there a consensus for handing him the right again? Sven Manguard Wha? 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. He did not ask me to do this, he dosen't even know I'm asking yet.

Obvious support Pretty much the most profilic file "worker" on Wikipedia. Why not give it back? He can be trusted, I don't see the slightest reason not to give the right back to him. HurricaneFan25 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
He asked for removal [4], so there is probably no need for a noticeboard thread to have it restored unless there is some kind of backstory. It should not be re-added to his account if he does not want it. –xenotalk 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The other side to that coin, though, is that he could request to have it re-added at any time. If there was no controversy surrounding the removal (and I can find none), then the request should be granted automatically. But the key is that it must be his request in that circumstance. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got no objection to having file-mover back, if the consensus is that I can be trusted with the tools. My recall is it that I asked for it's removal when there were a number of concerns expressed about my level of competence on file issues. As such my understanding was that it was established consensus, that when an issue of competence had been raised it was reasonable to remove rights where competence would be an issue. If consensus has now changed however... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If my reading of the discussion that lead to this was correct, the issue of moving files was never discussed, in fact your competence in files overall was never discussed, it was only that you were somewhat controversially tagging Commons files with local categories CSD F2. I fail to see what one has to do with the other, and I certainly fail to see how your competence in moving files could be questioned. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • - Can someone provide a link to the relevant discussion the preceded the removal of the right? Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems that the user is responsible for most of the current backlog - is it him that is tagging them all for renaming? Its like this one - - an unused file that more wants deleting than renaming. Is there a link to the discussion that resulted in this request? - scrap that I see he didn't ask for it S Manguard has took it upon himself to ask for him. I don't get that at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob: I am asking here because my conversations with Sfan in the IRC indicated to me that the only reason that he dosen't have file mover now is because he thought that he didn't have community support behind having it. Clearly, this is disproving his assumption, and will more than likely result in him getting the user right back. I suppose it isn't standard procedure, but I didn't just start this thread completely out of the blue. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the details. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That he's responsible for the current transfer backlog is precisely why I'm looking to get him reinstated. You're right, that's an utterly useless file, but the current name is still bad; the rename request is within the guidelines of the file mover policy. I personally flag things for deletion as I do renaming sprees (Chzz assembled, before his retirement, some lists of images with unacceptable filenames). Some users don't, they rename the files and let other people make value judgements. Considering that Sfan's confidence is clearly a bit low at the moment, I can see why he might have taken the latter option. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, he's clearly a intelligent user that isn't going to make the wheels drop off, there doesn't seem to be much objectionable in the history - so it he wants it back it seems a reasonable position to grant it to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see any reason he shouldn't be trusted with file mover, and he obviously needs it. It's admirable that he willingly gave up a tool due to perceived community concerns, but it seems like it was an unnecessary step in this case. Swarm X 16:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rev del[edit]

Hi, do we rev del this sort of addition/edit summary ? Its a shame on the project that it published that for twelve hours - users that opposed pending protection should think again - Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I revdel'd the edit summary in addition to the revision text.--v/r - TP 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This article Libel reform vows to slay anonymous trolls and the British draft defamation bill - - seem to reflect the current rash of legal proposals to stop the publication of such potentially libelous and defaming anonymous user-generated material. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob, the current draft defamation bill reduces the stringency of British libel law. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My interpretation was that the specific details relating to the Internet and anonymous postings and take down notice and take-down procedure and the recommendations of the committee that if put into practice would appear to relate to the the current model of en wikipedia - The committee argues that the law has not kept pace with the development of modern communication culture. It outlines a new notice and take-down procedure for the internet, designed to provide a quick and easy remedy for those defamed online and better protection to online publishers. Internet hosts gain the protection of the law provided they act responsibly by following the new procedure. Any anonymous postings must be taken down upon complaint, unless authors are prepared to identify themselves or there is an overriding public interest in publication. The committee recommends changing the law to promote cultural change so that, over time, the credibility of anonymous postings - and the damage that they can cause - is limited. - anyways - as per the recent Italian attempts to make defense of individuals reputations cheaper and easier failure to make it to the statute books I imagine most of these recommendations are unlikely to either. Personally I see it as reflective of general rise in anger against defaming trolls and I would like to see many more of them tracked down and charged or civil suits taken against them.. anyways, I saw and still see pending protection as a legal protection for the project and a tool that would have raised trust in the reputation of content in our articles, anyways, its not an extended discussion topic for this noticeboard, regards, - Off2riorob (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

user: Cossde domination[edit]

Discussion already ongoing on ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI - Wikipedia Administrators

[Cossde and Nalanda College Colombo](Masu7 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)).

This is also at AN/I. Yay! Doc talk 07:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • You do not have to be a genius to understand what my initial issue is. According to my research on wikipedia there should only be one Royal College in Sri Lanka. Below paragraphs are found on Royal College, Colombo that say (without any credible references):

Royal and other Schools - Royal College's maintains a century old rivalry with S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia as well as close ties with Trinity College, Kandy. Royal has long had a familial relationship with C.M.S. Ladies' College, Colombo : several families who chose to send their sons to Royal also chose to send their daughters to Ladies College, and many Old Royalists over the years have married alumni of C.M.S. Ladies' College, Colombo.

In 1945, Minister of Education C. W. W. Kannangara began the establishment of central colleges (Madhya Maha Vidhyala) as part of the Free Education policy to provide secondary education for the rural masses, he modeled these schools on the general structure of Royal College. Although there are several schools in parts of the island that have adapted the name Royal College in the post-independence era; none have links to Royal College Colombo nor have been received formal permission to use the Royal prefix.

This makes sense why editors like Cossde are trying their best to make any school coming up as Royal on wikipedia to be renamed as Rajakeeya (this is the name in Sinhala for Royal) or to isolate from Royal College Colombo.

On Cinnamon Gardens page it tries to isolate Thurstan College that is located just closer to Royal College (when a map searching is done on Google Maps) being added.

If such a statement is added to one of the other schools it will be deleted immediately saying that "Wikipedia is not for promotional activity". Why double standards and policies ?. Who monitors activity on Royal College, Colombo ?. (Masu7 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)).

Block explanation, please[edit]

I've blocked User:Eminentchess as a role account per its userpage, but I have to run; could someone please give them a decent explanation of why they've been blocked? Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I deleted the userpage User:Eminentchess - it is enough that admins can check the old contents, there is no need that this keeps visible - and added {{spamusernameblock}} to the talkpage (not strictly spam, more promotional, but it the explanation given is saying just that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right; sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the help! Nyttend backup (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Need an SPI clerk for closing a case which seems to have slipped through the cracks...[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Passionless. The case needs to be split because of a misidentification of the sockmaster. Otherwise, everything else has been taken care of. Thanks! --Jayron32 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken Mora[edit]

Kenmora (talk · contribs) has been adding a significant number of external links to actor's articles. He seems to have a conflict of interest since many of the links have to do with a real person named Ken Mora. See this search at one of the web sites that they have been spamming on articles. Could I get an admin to take a look at their contribs and help me with clean up? I'd like to get to bed and don't want to stay up for another hour cleaning all of this user's edits. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a very nasty spam-only account. I indef'd it. I've also gone through a few of the contribs and rollbacked the most recent.--v/r - TP 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 22:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up: eyes wanted at Men's rights[edit]

  • This leads me to expect an influx of newer editors, who may need some guidance regarding our policies, especially as regards OR, V and SYNTH. Article is under community probation. Thanks for adding it to your watchlist - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Threats of edit warring[edit]

Hi, I'd like advice on how to handle an IP that states that once the semi-protection on the article about Zachary Quinto, which was made, according to the IP, by a "drive-by Christian administrator", expires, it will restore an earlier revision and then revert to keep that revision it likes. There were lots of personal attacks made (bizarrly all revolving around Christianity) by the IP and it looks like the only intention is to be disruptive. Ideas how to deescalate this (before it begins)? I hardly ever post here, so please inform me if I'm in the wrong spot. Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted - not much to do right now as long as the IPs are only kvetching on the talk page. If the disruption continues, I don't mind giving it a non-Christian admin to complain about. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What about a Christian admin that acts non-Christian in the bedroom certain situations? :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the replies I could make that would get me pilloried by any number of groups... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to volunteer as a peacekeeper there if that's ok?
I'm in a Wikiproject covering the Zachary Quinto and can probably have a positive effect or at the least test my knowledge of WP policies =]
Thanks Jenova20 08:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for redirect[edit]

I am requesting a redirect from the non-existing page 'All Coppers are Bastards' to the page A.C.A.B A.C.A.B is a well known acronym, and has its own page. It seems odd that this redirect is blacklisted. Chaosandvoid (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird. I'm a non-admin, but I just created All Coppers are Bastards no worries. Are you sure you hit the title blacklist for that exact phrase? Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
On a slightly related note, I see you recently created New York Art Book fair – is that intended to be a redirect? Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems obvious enough to me that I converted it — but I had to copy/paste the coding from an existing redirect. How again am I supposed to get the redirect coding to appear? When I click the #R button above the edit window, nothing appears; I vaguely remember reading somewhere that this button isn't working in Internet Explorer in the latest edition of MediaWiki. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for JAT6634[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Community ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose a community site ban for user:JAT6634, a fifteen-year-old persistent nuisance who creates several new socks a week, the total now over 200, mostly for fantasy football pages. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JAT6634 for details. Most of his hoaxes are on user pages, but he also creates articles; a ban would make clear that these can be deleted at sight, and might also help in possible action via his ISP by the Abuse Response team. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. It's been a long time coming. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I generally don't like ban proposals for indef-blocked sockers, since we shouldn't sanction someone for 3RR with someone like this (we don't need the bureaucracy generally), but contacting the ISP is a good reason for the formal ban. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I.e. we shouldn't sanction someone for 3RR if they're edit warring for the sole purpose of reverting socks of blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. An editor who is so deliberately wasteful of other editors time over such an extended period has closed the door on themselves. RashersTierney (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the above.--v/r - TP 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the above comments. Also per the ever-expanding size of this page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I hope this behaviour will change when he gets older, but right now this is out of order. Minima© (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Anyone with a Long-term abuse report should be banned automatically. If they've reached that level, there's no other viable option for handling the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support banning all serial sockpupeteers. When they are this crazy and persistent WP:RBI is the only effective approach, a full siteban makes things very simple in that regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I am not an admin here and don't know if its out of line commenting here but anyone who is a serial sockpupeteers should never be unblocked. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
  • Support, per the obvious reasons expressed above. Swarm X 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, a no-brainer, contacted school 2 times even. Ain't goin' to stop. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
     • 10:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a list of the socks.

All reported sockpuppets of JAT6634
JAT6634 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))