Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273

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

Noticeboard archives


Strange behaviour from several new accounts[edit]

There have been several throwaway accounts recently—Yumakotori9, Samuelliam, Rozsateka, Vincemio9 and Antontimo2—that all follow the same editing pattern. Their edits almost exclusively consist of overlinking, adding redundant sentences and incorrectly italicising titles. Is this disruptive enough to warrant blocking? I've been reverting them but the frequency of these edits seem to be increasing. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Found some more: Reidan29, Emmaava17, Usagi40, Zoeemily, Ethanliam69, Yumiko69, Masonadam25, Aliceella25, Misako94. Obviously a sockpuppet of some sort, but I can't work out what the intent is. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Similarly unsure about their actual edits, but an SPI might be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
They might be a class of students learning how to edit Wikipedia and told to start off with this kind of stuff. Or, they are all making a load of minor edits to get auto-confirmed and then go after their real goals which may or may not be legitimate ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I've not looked in a huge amount of detail but it seems like the edits are sequential, as if one person is moving from account to account. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I raised something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article. Number 57 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about your examples, Number 57, but I left messages on the talk pages of all the ones named in this section asking them if this was a class assignment. This response indicates that maybe it is. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This is possibly a continuation of the disruption first reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Suspicious activity at Kammavari Palem. One of the accounts was proven to be a sockpuppet of User:036386536a; a couple others made unprompted denials of being sockpuppets even though no one had accused them in the first place. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a/Archive#6 June 2015 and the following two sections.) All the accounts implausibly claimed that Wikipedia itself told them to edit certain articles after signing up for an account. My best theory so far is that User:036386536a is either running or taking an online course on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Psychonaut:, @Lukeno94:, @WikiDan61:.

I'm not so sure it's implausible.

Presuming they claimed they were suggested to different articles, pretty sure it's entirely plausible. AFAIK Wikipedia:GettingStarted has been shown to all newly registered accounts after they complete registration for quite a while now. (Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout suggests since 2014-02-11.) Definitely it was shown when I created a temp account just now to confirm it's still working.

As that page says you can add ?gettingStartedReturn=true to any page to see what's shown to new users. If they came from an editable article (and the software knows it), they'll be invited to edit the article they came from, but if they came from anywhere else (an uneditable article or something that isn't an article or the software doesn't know where they came from) except special pages, they'll be direct to something else to edit.

Now, if many accounts claim they were all suggested to the same article (which wasn't were they started from) in in a brief timespan, that seems implausible unless there's a bug or weirdness in the design of getting started, those details I'm lazy to check.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone creates a new account from the main page, it's plausible that they'd be redirected to edit a random page. Maybe that's a problem with the philosophy behind the GettingStarted extension, essentially making them edit an article where they're practically guaranteed to have nothing to contribute. If new editors make noise edits and get reverted and accused of disruption or puppetry, that certainly seems contrary to the intended purpose of the extension. The charts on Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout are bizarre. At first glance, they seem to indicate that revert rates of new editors are declining, but if you actually look at them, they're just plotting data that has been pre-sorted into descending order. In any case, questioning the value of the extension seems more like a basis for an administrative request to get it uninstalled or at least maybe reviewed by someone without an interest in getting/keeping it installed. --Unready (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not just the main page of course, but any full protected or semi protected page (it seems the software actually detects whether you can edit so if you try it as an account, it will allow you to edit, but I don't think this isn't what new accounts experience, try doing it from an IP), non articles (I just checked and this includes talk pages of unprotected articles) and any case where their starting point was lost for some reason. And of course even if editing the current article is a suggestion, they can still click to edit a random article. Without commenting on the wider issues surrounding GettingStarted, I think the main point with regards to this discussion is if a new account says they were randomly directed at an article to edit it, this is entirely believable. If 5 new accounts in quick succession say they were "randomly" directed to edit the same article, either there's something weird about GettingStarted that probably should be changed, or these accounts aren't telling the truth. I'm not completely sure what the claim was here but it's possible the story told by the accounts is believable. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Portal:Current events/Turkey and Portal:Current events/Science and technology into Portal:Current events[edit]

Portal:Current events/Turkey and Portal:Current events/Science and technology should be merged into Portal:Current events in order to reduce the categories Category:2007 by day and Category:2009 by day, respectively, to 365 pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:LOGGERHEAD[edit]

For some reason this user's talk page is protected against creation. The user is due a whole bunch of cautions for poor edits but, since none of us lesser folk can create the page, he's not getting them... just like he's not getting notification about this ANI post. Bazj (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagging DanielRigal and I dream of horses who may have an interest in the resolution of this issue. Bazj (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe LOGGERHEAD needs to be notified, too. --I dream of horses (T) @ 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem though. We can't. :-( Here is the error message, if that is any help:
The title "User talk:LOGGERHEAD" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*GGER.* <casesensitive>
I was wondering whether it is a filter intended to prevent use of the N word? If so, it seems to be over-broad. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've created the page. The issue with the filter is that his name is all caps. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have left them a message. Are you sure it is due to it being all caps? From that regular expression it looks more like it specifically doesn't allow the substring "GGER". Will they be able to make a user page, or will the same problem apply there? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd assume the "GGER" substring is blocked because of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
...and sandbox, and common.js, and... They may be better off with a change of name? Bazj (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems a little unjust – there's nothing "untoward" about the name "Loggerhead" (yeah, lowercase would be better...), and it seems unfair to force a username change because of what one our LTA cases did. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with that. There's nothing wrong with this username, it is just a coincidence that it has a string in it that is similar to one used by one of the worst long-term-abusers of Wikipedia. I haven't kept op to date on their recent activities, but perhaps loosening the filters designed to stop them would be a better solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges[edit]

The committee has resolved most of the concerns raised, and after discussing the remaining issue directly with Scott, his replies have satisfied us. The Arbitration Committee thus rescinds its temporary injunction dated 1 July 2015 at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: Doug Weller, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, NativeForeigner, Yunshui, Euryalus, LFaraone, AGK

Opposing: Thryduulf, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad

Abstaining: Roger Davies

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Posted by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale at 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Arbitration Committee

List of girl groups[edit]

Hey folks, question about restoring a deleted page when a new page has been created at the same page title. For background, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#List of girl groups and my question about it here on Ponyo's talk page. A couple of us have proposed recreating a list of girl groups out of content removed from List of all-female bands because the two are defined slightly differently. I think that there's enough info which was just removed to create a new list, but since there's an old list as well and they're not the same, I think it makes sense to merge them. But, if I were to create a new draft out of the old page which Ponyo emailed me, I think I would be violating attribution. So my questions are:

  1. Is there a way to restore the old list to a new location (i.e. Draft:List of girl groups or User:Ivanvector/List of girl groups), perhaps by splitting the history?
  2. If I go ahead and paste the old page in as a draft anyway, can the history be attached at a later time?
  3. Am I overthinking this and/or should just get on with it?

Just curious at this point if it is possible; at any rate I would wait for a consensus at the Rfd but I'd like to be able to say for sure whether or not it's even a thing we can do. Thanks as always for your help. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've just restored the article at the previous title (List of girl groups). I'd say go ahead and merge what was previously removed from List of all-female bands. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Unblocked. Clearly an account caught up in collateral damage. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

Will someone see about unblocking Emyth (talk · contribs)? Like I stated on his talk page, he is not User:RJR3333/User:FDR. If we need more than two WP:CheckUsers on this, then please do that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The place to start is with Tiptoety, who made the block. This was a CU block, no admin can unblock him, only Tip or another CU, so WP:AN may not be the best place to ask. Dennis Brown - 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: The talk page shows that we already tried to start with Tiptoety, and I made it perfectly clear there that more than one WP:CheckUser should look into this. Right now, we have an innocent editor blocked as another editor, and no one is doing anything about it. And, yes, I know better than anyone who is or isn't RJR3333/FDR (well, except for RJR3333/FDR himself). Flyer22 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. This definitely looks like a false positive; it's quite easy to see that the accounts had radically different topics of interest from their earliest edits, and why would you create a sockpuppet ten years ago to edit when you've already been editing for two years so sporadically that you're not likely to get into conflicts? Meanwhile, Emyth gives a reasonable explanation of being a university professor: when you're on a university's public network, it's easy to share an IP by accident with unrelated-in-real-life disruptive people. I experienced it a few years ago: if you'd run a CU on me, you'd have thought that I was doing this because we'd used the same network. And Dennis, since this is a place for community input, it's definitely an appropriate place to come; community consensus runs things here, and if the checkuser policy conflicts with it, the checkuser policy must give way. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, since in this case the block is apparently collateral damage. Miniapolis 01:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, at least until another checkuser can get a look at it (and I will ping the functionaries list in a moment), and as per the policy. The story seems plausible enough, but the checkusers may be privy to more information than us and nobody should undo the block until we're given the all clear for that reason. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
  • We need to wait for Tiptoety to respond. To the extent it's relevant, Emyth doesn't seem to be in any hurry (long spaces betweeen a question to them on their Talk page about this issue and their response, and very sporadic edits before the block). One of the problems with this is the complexities of technical data. What Tiptoety could see in April when they blocked Emyth is far more than I can see in July. Emyth has only two non-stale edits to look at now. There are a couple of other confirmed socks who have non-stale data (there may be more, but I'd have to go through each one). One was easier (PaulBustion88) because that account was blocked by Tiptoety at the same time as Eymth and had recent edits (the other two in the quartet in the archives were blocked much earlier and didn't). But, for example, I wouldn't have thought that FDR had non-stale edits because the account was blocked so long ago, but they did, quite a few, actually. In any event, from what I can see, Tiptoety's technical findings, not surprisingly, were reasonable. I have no comment on behavior as I'm not conversant with this master.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to the behavioral data, and how I know who is RJR3333/FDR, the following might help some of you: User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#User:RJR3333 likely editing as User:ECayce187, User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#Another RJR3333 sock, User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#Another stalker WP:SOCK --- User:Shuriken892 and User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#RJR3333 or Cali11298. Once I have thoroughly analyzed the way that an editor edits, it is highly unlikely that I am wrong when naming that editor's account as a WP:SOCK of another. Just ask RJR3333 (or Cali11298, for that matter). In that "Another RJR3333 sock" thread, you can see that I told Tiptoety, "Given the articles that Emyth has focused on, and the way he signs his username, here, here, and here, maybe Emyth is not RJR3333. Emyth doesn't use the two dashes. And in my experience, it has proven difficult for RJR3333 not to use two dashes when he signs his username. That second diff-link I provided in this post shows Emyth signing his username with the statement 'All the best,' right before the signature, which is uncharacteristic of RJR3333. I've also known RJR3333 to be honest about his additional WP:Sockpuppets and to not deny one once it has been confirmed by a WP:CheckUser as being tied to him." Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
8 ball icon.svg The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: It's vaguely  Possible, bordering on  Unlikely that they are the same person from a purely technical standpoint. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Corrected, see below. I shouldn't checkuser right after waking up. >_< Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
8 ball icon.svg The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Based purely on technical evidence, they are largely  Technically indistinguishable, along with several other unrelated users. When you factor in account age and editing interests, I find it very  Unlikely that they are the same. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I am on holiday with limited access to the internet. You can consider this my approval to do whatever is appropriate. If I clearly made a mistake, hastily reverse the block. Best, Tiptoety talk 19:41, 4 July 2015 (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.

Help with global vandalism[edit]

A user I blocked has gone postal and created socks named User:Bishonen2 and User:Bishonen3 to attack me, using the choicest phrases from the person's original reaction to my block, which is here. And used IPs and a few accounts with other names, too; my recent talkpage history is illustrative (mostly for admins, as most of the stuff has been revdel'd).

Now I'm getting a storm of e-mails informing me that I have received messages from "Bishonen4" at Wikiquote, Mediawiki, Meta, Commons… maybe more places by now. And also that the choice phrases, when reverted, have been restored using IPs. Help, please? I'd like to emphasize that I'm not upset or anything, it's not worth a massive effort, but perhaps a filter? P.S., I just see now that Bishonen4 has been globally locked. But I bet there'll be more. Anyway. Maybe protection or semi of my global userpages? Bishonen | talk 21:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

I would definitely suggest an Admin tagging those User pages with... something that makes it clear that they were blocked, and why they were blocked, so no one confuses them with "alt" accounts of yours! --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, there is no Bishonen5 listed at Meta. "Bishonen4" is globally locked which means they will not be able to log in on any wiki, which means they will not be able to send any further email. I have re-blocked 2 and 3 on this wiki to disable email. A steward should globally lock these as well. You can file a request for this at meta:Steward requests/Global#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oops, re-reading your post I see the user did not actually email you; the email was received from the system as a notification.. Regardless, these two accts should be globally locked. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Diannaa, good thing somebody knows their way around the crazy wiki world. Nyttend has already filed the request, thanks Nyttend. I've added a few words. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I've added a {{Blockedimpersonator}} tag to the Bishonen2 user page (I left Bishonen3 alone, as there's no user page created there). I hope that's OK. If it's not, either you (or any Admin here) can please feel free to revert. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure specifically about Commons? I am an admin there, but neither Bishonen2 nor Bishonen3 seem to be registered account on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the Commons portion was specifically in reference to "Bishonen4". --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this looks possible. They are globally locked now anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman, History of deleting, altering and removing text of posts on talk pages[edit]

GingerBreadHarlot has been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE, so this complaint is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

North Shoreman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm filing this request correctly. User Tom Northshoreman, has been doing a lot of disruptive editing on talk pages. I noticed he has been modifying, deleting or altering posts of other people on the talk pages, but not in a helpful way, but to basically erase what people are saying. He has done so to me on the Leo Frank talk page. He has done so to other people on the Leo Frank talk page when I looked at the archives. I'm sure if one looks closely at his history, he has done this disruptive behavior on other talk pages. This is creating a very ugly environment on Wikipedia and I'm asking that his behavior be enforceablely stopped. Can several editors who are not partisans of Tom Northshoreman's political views on Wikipedia please do an audit of his behavior. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's typical for reports like yours to provide "diffs" or examples of edits that support your charges. As you can understand, editors want to see evidence that indicates what you say is true and not just take your word on it. See HELP:DIFF for help on how to create a diff of an edit. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, before they posted here, I had already advised the user to provide diffs (and incidentally to go to ANI, not AN), as I removed the inappropriate placement of the above attack on his own talkpage.[5] GingerBreadHarlot, if you have trouble producing diffs, I really can't recommend HELP:DIFF. Try this guide instead. (Relatively new, btw? You've been here over a year. Everything's relative, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen, I'll use that link in the future. I didn't know there was an alternative to the Help page. Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot is confused. These diffs [6] and [7] are apparently what GBH is talking about. Two problems. First of all, they were done by somebody else. Second, since GBH was violating BLP, the changes were perfectly justified and the reasons were provided in the edit summaries.

Much of GBH's participation on the Leo Frank case consists of personal attacks on other editors (mostly me) and personal attacks on living historians that he disagrees with. The two diffs provided clearly demonstrate how far overboard GBH has gone in his attacks on these historians. These violations of BLP have continued. Recently GBH wrote, "Thus the arguments for Frank's innocence are legally insufficient and fallacious, many of which are based on academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, academic fraud and plagiarism (I will present proof if needed)." [8] and "we can now see Dinnerstein's racist antigentile hatecrime hoax meme everywhere on the Internet"[9]. As this edit [10] on another article shows, GBH is fully aware of what BLP means (although his interpretations are suspect).

Perhaps an exploration of GBH's talk page behavior might be in order. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, if only those who don't agree with Tom's views can comment on his behavior, as I don't agree with GingerBreadHarlot's views on anti-Semitism I presume they won't mind my commenting on their behavior. On GBH's talk page, besides being told to grow a spine, I'm told that "Labeling people or articles/books people wrote with infantilized emotionally charged words ... to suppress individuals or groups doesn't work anymore to chill dissent in the real world and all it does is instigate a loaded name calling contest that leads no where." and then at the end of the section is the battle call (or perhaps an order to me):"Stop the anti-Gentile behavior. Stop the Anti-Gentilism". I note that at WP:RSN#American Mercury et al GBH refers to the "Antigentile activists groups ADL / SPLC". As for the specific complaint about altering other editors' comments, I see that GBH hasn't complained about their IP supporter there ( (talk · contribs), also an opponent of the ADL and SPLC) who has been modifying, deleting or altering other editors' posts.[11][12][13]. Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm a well-read person but I never heard the term "Anti-Gentilism" before and don't see how it could be an accurate description of any behavior on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You probably don't want to know, but see [14] and [15]. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (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.


Unambiguous promotion user page (and a copyvio to boot) deleted by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

The content of this userpage is a copy of the external page - so it's a copyright-violation. Regards --Färber (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Next time please simply tag the article with {{db-g12}} (or {{db-g11}} wich applied in this case). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:28, 7 July 2015 (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.


Patience, grasshopper. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

For how many days I will wait?--Fgdt5r78698778 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just have patience. There are people working in that area, so it shouldn't be too long assuming there aren't certain problems (e.g. the name you are trying to usurp has too many edits). If there are problems, it will be pointed out. Dustin (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. He has zero edits

--Fgdt5r78698778 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You would have to ask there, it isn't a matter for administrators, but for global renamers/Crats. Keep in mind that this the Independence Day Weekend for those of us in the US, so some Crats may be busy enjoying the 3 day weekend. Dennis Brown - 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
note: At WP:USURP, requests that were initiated July 1st are marked that they "should be addressed on or before July 9, 2015." Give it time, it will probably be addressed sometime next week. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fgdt5r78698778: No, it is true. "e.g." means "for example". I wasn't saying that User:Treasure Hunter has too many edits. I was saying that having too many edits would be an example of a problem which could block usurpation, not that it necessarily applies to this instance. Dustin (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2015 (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.


I've started an RfC regarding the inactivity requirement for administrators here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I've started an RfC concerning activity requirements for bureaucrats here: Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Increasing the activity requirement for retaining bureaucrat rights. –xenotalk 21:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Has anyone else noticed the artspam masquerading as economy driving tips etc, and recently even hair and skin care tips, that finishes with a link to I'm blocking the authors as SOA, but can anything be done to put a stop to it? If Toyota management know about it and are behind it, they need to be told officially where to get off, but if they don't, it's not doing their image much good and perhaps they should be told so they can deal with their PR dept... Two examples from one account (User:Ferazunnahar parul) are Motorcycle tyre devices and Vaseline scine care. Peridon (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Toyota has nothing to do with Vaseline and skin care. Probably just someone including a spurious link to make it look more "official". ansh666 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But the point of artspam is to sell something - or get people to your site. These are throwaway accounts, and it's been going on for quite some time. A lot of the artspam I see is for bodybuilding stuff, leading to small sites, or to blogspot type sites. Toyota is the only big name I see in this sort of spamming. The titles and text are getting further away from motors. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Toyota is behind this. It's likely a spambot performing a test with a "real" link before it swaps in their spam links later, once the bot has been modified to avoid suspicion. Nakon 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Possible. I'm fairly sure it's a bot anyway. In one way, it's useful, I suppose. I just block any account that does it... I'd say it's been going for over a year now. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion needed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4[edit]

I closed this and then noticed that it referred to over 200 articles (all listed at Category:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences), which would take far more time than I have right now. Though not all were listed at the AFD, they all appear to have (somehow, by template) been tagged with a notice (as at Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D841). Additionally, the sole creator/editor of these lists agreed with deletion.[16] Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like MusikAnimal's done it. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, @Postdlf: instantly and effortlessly done using Twinkle's batch deletion tool :) I also closed a relevant TfD discussion. MusikAnimal talk 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I figured there was a way, but I've never used the d-batch option and didn't know why I couldn't find how to access it. And I now see from your solution: it won't show up on a redlinked category page, so you created a dummy category page just to enable the tool. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions enforcement: requesting review of editor behaviour[edit]

In this comment, Bbb23 suggested bringing this matter here. In considering enforcement of the WP:GS/UKU sanctions, please review the edits of Speccy4Eyes. RGloucester 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it's disingenuous of him to claim he's only adding references to these articles. He could add the refs without constantly changing the units of measurement. If, after this discussion, there's a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd consider GS. KrakatoaKatie 03:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record KrakatoaKatie, I have not changed any units of measurement, I have only added references - in fact, I have carefully avoided changing units, despite the fact that the added reference may use different units, by harnessing the power of the 'order=flip' option in the {{convert}} template (as suggested in WP:UNITS: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary"). Speccy4Eyes (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the question, Speccy4Eyes: Does your edit change the units of measurement shown first to the reader? Yes? Then it's covered by this sanction. It doesn't matter how you did it, whether it was by using the template function or manually. We've been through this with dates and British/American English and everything else under the sun, and you're not fooling anyone. KrakatoaKatie 13:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually the answer to the question is "no". They are actually edit warring over whether the article should say "185 cm (6 ft 1 in)" or "185 cm (6 ft 1 in)". Kahastok talk 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie, no, the answer to your question is "no" - that is the point of following the suggestion in WP:UNITS as I mentioned above - to not change the units of measurement shown first to the reader. Here is the before and after of one of my edits:
  • Before my edit and unreferenced: wiki markup was {{convert|196|cm|ftin|abbr=on}}, shown to the reader as "196 cm (6 ft 5 in)".
  • After I added a reference in which the height was given in feet and inches: wiki markup was {{convert|6|ft|5|in|cm|order=flip|abbr=on}}, shown to the reader as "196 cm (6 ft 5 in)".
Here are some other of my edits: [17], [18], [19]. Note too the edit summaries which make it clear that the shown primary units are unchanged. Do you follow that now - it follows exactly the WP:UNITS advice for how to display the results when the reference uses different units to those required in the article. And there is no way that can possibly be interpreted as contravening WP:GS/UKU. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two editors involved here, and their references dispute is not the start of it. I do not think we should consider one of them without considering the other as well, since they're both basically doing the same thing.

The general sanctions require "clear consensus" before an editor "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another". Two editors - User:Speccy4Eyes and User:Michael Glass - have thus developed a tactic of proposing identical changes to significant numbers of relatively low-profile articles at the same time, on the assumption that there will be no objection. Speccy proposes a change to imperial, Michael to metric (through the proxy of source-based units, a system rejected by MOSNUM). They wait a bit, and when there is no objection in a couple of days, they then claim consensus and start flipping units on all the articles. To my mind it is an attempt to Wikilawyer the sanctions - a better approach would be to achieve a genuine consensus at the relevant WikiProject.

In practice, both seem to be watching each other's contributions and systematically objecting to each other's proposals, rendering the whole exercise a waste of their time and any watcher's time. Kahastok talk 06:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • That is classic WP:GAMING and both should be immediately prohibited from making any further such proposals. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't propose to make any further proposals to change UK rugby and footballers' heights from imperial first to metric first (the majority are metric first at the moment). In fact, I gave up making these proposals when Speccy4eyes objected to every one of them. (Speccy4eyes also gave up on making these proposals, when I objected.) Therefore already, the problem proved to be self-limiting, and as it got other people's backs up, that's more than enough hint for me to stop. Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • In as much as this behaviour has been revealed here, I imagine that both editors should be topic-banned under WP:GS/UKU. RGloucester 16:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, that would presumably require evidence of a contravention being uncovered first? To date all we have seen here, as well as ignorance of how the "order=flip" option should be used in the {{convert}} templae, are examples of talk page exchanges which completely comply with the requirements of WP:GS/UKU. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It is disruptive editing (and forumshopping), which are both covered by the sanctions. The evidence is clear. Gaming the system is not going to solve any problems. RGloucester 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's deal with the forum shopping first. I came here after I was formally notified by Kahastok. How could this be classed as forum shopping?
Now on the question of disruptive editing. I don't think there has been any instance of breaking the three revert rule. I don't think there have been protracted disputes on any talk pages. Objections have been made to requesting a change of units on more than one page. There is nothing in the rules to say that this is wrong. However, I have stated above that I will not do it any more. If there are any other conditions that need to be filled, please state them. I can't comply with rules that are applied ex post facto. That would be an abuse of process. Michael Glass (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There is another point. I updated UK football player profiles this year without too much angst. Now I feel I have been dragged into this because of the actions of Speccy4Eyes (and because of the notification I received). If these were baits that I have risen to, then I am sorry. We live and learn. Michael Glass (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You should be following the spirit of the rule, not the letter of the rule. The spirit of the rule is that there should be clear consensus before mass-changes of units, and you were trying to get around this by reducing a mass change of units to lots of individual changes of units and claiming consensus when nobody responded. This was gaming the system. That you might not have been called on it in February does not mean it was OK in February, or that it was OK in June.
No-one is ever going to give you a comprehensive list of what will be deemed within the rules and what will be deemed against the rules. The rule is as it is described. You need to follow the spirit of the rule and this tactic was clearly not in the spirit of the rule. Kahastok talk 08:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that there is still disruptive editing going on between entrenched camps, with bemused editors appalled at the triviality of it stuck in the middle. See WP:LAME#Falkland Islands, at one time a group of enthusiastic editors got together with the aim of improving wikipedia's coverage of the Falkland Islands. They set up WP:FALKLAND and began on a systematic programme of creating articles. Along came two editors, Martinvl (currently blocked for disruptive editing and Michael Glass with a suggestion, hey lets make all Falkland Islands articles completely metric. Editors said no, they wanted to follow WP:MOSNUM. And they kept coming back again and again and again with the same suggestion to the point the group was unable to function. It was impossible to discuss article improvement, every attempt to do so became a discussion on unit order dominated by those two editors. And like we see here, there was gaming of the system, with both editing against consensus to "test the strength of the established consensus.
And now we're seeing the same thing again on a different set of articles. This isn't about improving articles, its agenda dictated editing by both camps, who either see you as for 'em or against 'em, both failing to recognise that to edit requires you are prepared to compromise and create articles intended for readers. I would suggest an editing restriction that both editors should not make any edits related to unit systems or to change unit order in article. WCMemail 11:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This reference of WCM was to a dispute of half a decade ago. Since that time the matter has been resolved, even though Kahastok and WCM fought against the final resolution. About the most recent dispute, I did not make changes to articles when other editors objected. I believe that this is complying with both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Michael Glass (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Yes, I can now see that proposing compliance with MOSNUM, on numerous talk pages at once, is perceived as shit-stirring - I am sorry that I did it, and won't do it again. When I did it though, I thought it was the correct way to get the articles properly and compliantly, formatted. You have to remember that I have only been an editor here since November 2014, and that I had got caught up in what I thought were unit changes against policy by Michael Glass.

I came across him on Talk:Richard Wright (footballer) when he was proposing to replace the ft-in height with a cm height, but with a different value from that that his club, Manchester City, gave. He wanted all the Man City players formatted the same, so I went through about half of them making then consistent. After that, another editor stepped in and changed them all back again, claiming England should use meters (which was clearly wrong). Michael Glass then chipped in and said I was breaking the WP:GS/UKU rules, which I had never heard of at that time. Shortly after I had the WP:GS/UKU warning stuck on my talk page by RGloucester (at the instigation of Michael Glass I have just discovered!). That stopped me in my tracks, I apologised to them, and I started reading up more on the rules. It was that, combined with watching what Michael Glass was doing in his attempts to change all the articles to metric, despite what MOSNUM said, that convinced me that the correct thing to do was to make the articles comply with MOSNUM, but to put a courtesy discussion item on each talk page first (as Michael Glass did). Naive you might say, but commendable I thought, to adhere to all the rules.

I even tried again recently, after more Michael Glass encounters, to find a solution by trying to stimulate the invention of imaginative new ways to ensure MOSNUM is complied with, rather than circumvented, by starting a new topic on its talkpage. Though there were some constructive comments there, the initiative to attempt to find a better way, has basically been shot out of the water.

If you think I have committed heinous crimes by my (good faith) actions, then punish me as you see fit, of course. Otherwise, I would appreciate being given a second chance, and hopefully learn, and emerge the better, from this experience. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


By community consensus and enforcement of the WP:GS/UKU sanctions, editors Speccy4Eyes and Michael Glass are indefinitely prohibited from making any edits on unit systems and to change the unit order in articles they edit, broadly construed. Failure to abide by this editing restriction will result in an escalating series of blocks. WCMemail 11:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of gaming that WCM rightly raises, and the failure by both (but particularly by Speccy4Eyes) to see what was wrong here, I support. Kahastok talk 13:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As I understand it, both of us have already agreed not to make changes to order of units. It should be remembered that both WCM and Kahastok have a long history of acrimonious disputes, most notably on the Falkland Islands and especially Gibraltar, where both were sanctioned. They do not come with clean hands and are clearly motivated by a long-standing animosity towards me.

As I see it, both Speccy4Eyes and I have agreed not to make changes in the order of units in UK based articles. It should be clear from the interactions between the two of us that both of us, despite our obvious disagreements, are trying to get on. However, when Kahastok and then WCM came in it is clear that they have another agenda, and want to continue old fights and settle old scores. Their contributions should therefore be treated with great caution. Michael Glass (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I support this proposal, because the best way to curtail this disruption, and any such future incidents, is to remove the main participants from the dispute. RGloucester 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose—A hammer-strike is proposed where warnings and a temporary narrow-scope ban would be more appropriate. BTW, RGloucester is hardly someone whose hands are clean in terms of gaming the system. It's amusing to see him weighing in here. Tony (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal, since it seems overly strict – a very coarse solution to a very specific problem. Contra RGloucester's comment immediately above, this proposal is the easiest solution but not the best. To make a reductio of it, Wikipedia would have zero disruptions in the limit where it had zero editorial activity.
These General Sanctions were intended to stop disruptive behaviour relating very specifically to unit formatting in UK-related articles; it seems far beyond their scope, therefore, to ban these two editors indefinitely "from making any edits on unit systems and to change the unit order in articles they edit, broadly construed". There is no reason why, for example, they should be forbidden from changing an article about Germany which gave distances in the format "miles (kilometres)" to "kilometres (miles)", since such an edit is favoured by the MOS and not disruptive. If sanctions are to punish disruptive behaviour, then they need to focus on disruptive behaviour. I think we should honour the statements by these editors for now, that they will not continue to make and debate masses of these unit-changing proposals simultaneously. Clarify that such proposals are irritating to other users and against the spirit of the GS. Discuss again only when there is something to discuss. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment An indefinite ban is out of line with the sanctions outlined in WP:GS/UKU

  • The sanctions don't even mention proposing to make changes in the order of units. Despite this, both of us have agreed not to make any more proposals. This is a demonstration of good faith on both our parts.
  • The proposer has taken no account of the fact that Spcccy4Eyes presents as a new editor. Despite this, an indefinite ban is proposed on him. I don't think this is fair, unless Speccy4Eyes is shown to be a sockpuppet.
  • The proposer has taken no account of the fact that Speccy4Eyes was the one who made multiple requests for a change of units. Yes, I made several requests, and these were opposed by Speccy4#yes, but neither of us edit warred about our disagreements.
  • The proposer is clearly hostile. Take his contributions to a discussion that had no bearing on units of measure See [[28]] " am, however, firmly opposed to the WP:WEASEL words suggested by Michael." " I'm inclined to reject native-born for the simple reason this is all so silly" However, the final comment in the talk was ""Native-born" is quite reasonable and not at all silly if it resolves the concerns expressed above." (The final wording: "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders." [[29]]. Therefore, as I stated before, WCM's proposals should be treated with caution.
  • Both Speccy4Eyes and I have agreed not to make proposals to change the order of units. Despite this clear undertaking from both of us, the proposer has asked for an indefinite ban on asking for a change in units.
  • I really do think that this proposal raises questions about a possible abuse of process. Michael Glass (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sportsgamaniacre requests an unblock[edit]

Unblock request declined, by unanimous consensus of the seven editors (including six administrators) who took part in this discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user requested an unblock under WP:OFFER. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Really not impressed with their request, which is just parrotting the phrasing of the standard offer without offering any indication that they actually understand why they were blocked. This seems to be a consistent pattern of theirs, just trying to find the right words withoiut trying to understand why. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Beeblebrox. I will also point out that the most recent change to their block was for this: [30]. This was just in January, the unblock request seems to skirt around that fact by saying "I had six months of not doing anything on Wikipedia". They have blocks for several types of behaviour but do not address any specifically in the unblock request. I oppose unblocking for these reasons. Chillum 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't say the clue-bus has arrived for this user. Regurgitating policy pages doesn't breed a lot of confidence. Blackmane (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've read all the unblock requests on their page, there are quite a few. The overwhelming impression is that they need to be kept blocked, if only because competence is required. Bishonen | talk 07:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
  • As Bishonen says, there are a number of unblock requests on the page. They tend to be both repetitive and short, and show at absolute best only a gradual and partial dawning of understanding of the problem. He does not appear to understand the details of WP:OFFER; this was first put to him in February, and even with understanding and appropriate behavior would prohibit editing until August. Competence is also an issue. I would not at this time recommend unblock. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Ugh, whatever you don't like about their request, please don't blame them on the date of request, it's my screwup: I miscalculated the month based on the right assumption (last sock on Jan 29) when replying to them via OTRS. Let's just consider the request as is, forgeting fr a second about the month not served, can we? Max Semenik (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I was initially in favour of a WP:ROPE unblock, since despite the comments above it seemed possible (even if unlikely) that the editor might actually have learnt better. However, I have now looked a bit more thoroughly at the editor's extensive block history, and I realise that he or she has already been given several very long coils of rope, and it is probably time to say enough is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with everyone else so far. He says he knows socking will get him in a lot of trouble but doesn't specifically agree to stop it. Not good enough. KrakatoaKatie 16:42, 7 July 2015 (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.


I'll deal with this manually for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talkcontribs) 15:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

As per WP:RANGE, asking for range block from someone with knowledge of how these things work. I've separately asked for check user at User talk:HJ Mitchell as User:Sweet Xeper appears to be evading block through use of a dynamic IP. Examples of IP addresses include:,, However WP:QUACK. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: We need all the IP addresses you think the guy uses so we can narrow the range as tightly as possible. The three you've given are a /12 range, and that will cause way too much collateral damage. KrakatoaKatie 16:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, will make a list. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
        • So far I've found: (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))

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.

Unblock User:Arctic Kangaroo (alt)?[edit]

Resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

Should this account be unblocked? Graphium's unblocked conditions does not include one-account limitation, and this account is publicly disclosed, So I don't think using this account will violate Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--GZWDer (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My immediate reflex is to say 'no'. I seem to recall having been involved as a blocking admin or at least in a very lengthy block discussion about Arctic Kangaroo. But where is that account now? And how and why was he allowed back as Graphium? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
After half-an-hour digging I rember now. He was indeffed here for CIR and there had also been a huge kerfuffle at AfC. Can't understand why he was allowed back but that appears to have been a BASC decision that I was not privy to. My answer is still 'No. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arctic Kangaroo was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee a couple of days ago, as shown on User talk:Graphium, to which Arctic Kangaroo's page redirects. So he has changed his name; that's fine. The unblock conditions are shown here: The community-imposed ban from uploading media files in force remains in force, and the three month community-imposed ban from reviewing AFC submissions remains in force and is extended indefinitely. It seems to me that the committee doesn't have to specify as an unblock condition that a (previously) problematic user, still subject to restrictions, has to confine themselves to one account, so as not to avoid scrutiny. Graphium, do you have any good reason for using more than one account? Let's wait a little for a response, but as the default here, I think we keep the other account blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
    • When I created that account back then, there was no particular purpose for it. I think it was created because I saw some other editors had alternate accounts and that was probably about it. It was just something that I did last time without thinking through what and why I wanted to do. If you ask me now, I don't have any need for an alternate account at the moment. Also, in the email prior to unblock I was told to explicitly say which account I wanted to use as the other would remain indefinitely blocked. --Graphium 15:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Graphium, happy editing. I think this can be closed now. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 9 July 2015 (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.


(non-admin closure) Already a thread on AN/I, this is an "incident" and belongs there, and not here. BMK (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

I haven received any more responses to this matter and I am wondering what to do next. Can I add information to three articles? Thank you.

Editor: "Helpsome"

I am new to Wikipedia and was treated very rudely by "Helpsome" last month. S/he called me a liar and was generally abusive.

I suggest the following: 1) S/he be reprimanded and given some general guidelines on civility. 2) S/he be given retraining on actually reading what s/he was deleting before s/he deletes it. (The entry on one of the articles I added material to is now messed up due to his/her editing without looking -- it has entries in the Reference section with nothing being referred to). 3) I request to be allowed to enter material as long as I do not "self-promote" without being abused.

Thank you.

W. Paul Marshall

("wpaul1972") I've moved the required user notification to Helpsome's talk page from the title of this section. Sam Walton (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Here Wpaul1972 (talk · contribs) is the link to make it easier to read this editors relevant pages. It looks like the article in question is Nagarjuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the ensuing discussion at User talk:Helpsome/Archive 3#Nagarjuna MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Looks like this may be helpful: Shankara1000 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) as effectively Helpsome seems to be suggesting that Wpaul1972 is a sock of Shankara1000. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Helpsome did not edit since 19 June 2015, he may not be able to comment on this complaint. JimRenge (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC) These are the edits that appear to be in question: [82][83](and by Shakira1000). However, I must note to Wpaul1972 that this revert did not remove the improvements you made here, merely, he removed the information for Jones Richard. That seems odd. I would like @Helpsome: to explain this focus, however noting the above. -- Orduin Discuss 21:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Again, I am not Richard Jones or any of the other scholars I try to add. I do not know him. I did once speak to Lex Hixon after one of his talks, but he is dead. I don't understand the reference to Shankara 1000 -- if Helpsome is suggesting I also use that name I never have. Paul (wpaul 1972) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpaul1972 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC) @Wpaul1972: Please sign your comments using 4 tildes (i.e. Wpaul1972 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)). The system with automatically sign and date your comment. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Marshall

Wpaul1972 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)wpaul 1972

@Wpaul1972: Mentioning your real name is not required here.Aero Slicers 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This looks like a rehash of a thread from ANI: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Editor: "Helpsome". —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2015 (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.

Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing[edit]

NinaGreen can request an unblock themself if desired. Sam Walton (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
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.

Hello. I propose that NinaGreen be unblocked and invited back to editing. NinaGreen has been a productive editor with a record of over 24,000 edits and numerous new articles. She is the subject of topic restrictions imposed by the ArbCom. More particularly, she may not make edits about the subjects of William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Since receiving the restrictions, she appears to me not to have concentrated her edits on those subjects, though I could not say whether or not there was an instance when she subsequently edited in violation of those topic restrictions.

On 12 February 2014, she was indefinitely blocked, in response to her making large posts (about 5kB each) to 14 user talk pages, mostly of ArbCom members at that time. The indefinite character of the block has bothered me since I first saw it. She since had her talk page access revoked. Before trying to have this reviewed, I decided to wait and see if NinaGreen would have this resolved on her own. She has still not been unblocked.

I do not aim to assail the judgement of any administrator who has blocked NinaGreen. I am only advancing the idea that the block does not serve Wikipedia's interests at this time, and that it can be given fresh thought. Italick (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Has NinaGreen made any request to be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of such action or inaction. Her talk page access is disabled right now. Italick (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To update, I recognize that she came back to edit after a ban lasting one year. I meant to say that I don't know whether she violated her topic restrictions after coming back from that ban. She engaged in significant editing activity since the ban, on other notable historic British persons. Italick (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The ArbCom case name is "Shakespeare authorship question" [31]. I'm not expert at following ArbCom cases, but the year-long ban may have been one of the first remedies used against her. I think her ban was extended for her use of sockpuppets but I do not recall seeing that she was breaching the topic sanctions. Italick (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
One alleged sockpuppet is TurquoiseMountain. I am not about to look over the entire edit history of TurquoiseMountain, but the edits do not appear on their face to be concentrated on Shakespeare or Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford). Italick (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that this is not a sockpuppet since because from what I see that user was not simply suspected buy was confirmed to be one by a Checkuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a serious doubt about whether the account is a sockpuppet of Ninagreen. Italick (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think without an unblock request all we can do is return access to their user page and inform them of the standard offer. One of the reasons to get an unblock request prior to unblocking someone is to make sure they will not repeat the same behaviour. Chillum 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the same latitude to return that was given to Barney_the_barney_barney on 10 December 2014 be given to NinaGreen? Italick (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not in my opinion, Italick. The arbcom case is here. The arbitration committee sitebanned her for one year, and indefinitely topic banned her "from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question,