Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

• Martim33 (talk · contribs)

The Wikipedia:Copyright violation procedure was not written in mind of single contributors infringing to multiple pages. Yesterday, User:Piotrus pointed out to me at my talk page a problem with User:Martim33 and suggested I might want to take a look at his contributions. I am doing so at User:Moonriddengirl/Contribution check Martim33, but this is a slow process. I have found copyright infringement in most of the articles I've looked at so far to which this contributor has significantly added text. Since we very seldom see action mobilized as swiftly as it was with User:GrahamBould, we lack a good process for swiftly dealing with such problematic content. I'm not talking about blocking the editor, who had not been issued a copyright warning prior to this and who has not edited since this problem was discovered. I'm talking about swiftly pruning unlawfully displayed text from the project. Given that this user is known to piecemeal paste sentences and paragraphs from previously published, copyrighted sources (book and web), what's the best, swift approach? Should we blank every article he's contributed to, as we did with User:GrahamBould pending review? Should we revert those articles to which he's contributed text (as opposed to templates) to the versions of articles prior to his additions until these additions can be reviewed, either through some formal process or by the regular contributors to the articles? Meanwhile, there is another contributor pointed out by the same user who found these problems who needs a thorough contribution check, given his verified history of placing copyrighted text in Wikipedia. And User:GrahamBould is still not finished. WP:COPYCLEAN definitely doesn't have enough manpower to keep on top of this kind of thing. Very likely, I'll have to launch some kind of proposal at WP:CV for handling these issues, but that's going to take some time...and this is here and present now. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas, I take it. :) Well, I've posted some at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, in two sections: one on cleanup and one on rehabilitation of offenders. I'm going to publicize the conversation at the usual points, but if you can, please come by and help devise some kind of policy for addressing these situations. Copyright conversations typically draw few contributors, but what's needed here is logic and an understanding of the Wikiway, not encyclopedic knowledge of copyright law. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Anymore? I have since posting this found yet another multi-page infringer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:K'Anpo is a "good hand" account of User:ECW500.

I came into contact with K'Anpo on Talk:WrestleCrap, where he unreverted my reversion of an ECW500 sock's post to the page, claiming the sock's point was valid. Fine, I figured, the sock did have a point. But then today I noticed that K'Anpo has been removing SSP tags from ECW500 socks. Repeatedly [1] [2] [3].

Because ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks, has already used User:CrueBall (contribs) as a good hand account, and because it seems odd to me that an account that only goes back to March 27, 2009 would take such an interest in a banned user, I'm bringing this to the community's attention. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "good hand" account? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHBH. hmwithτ 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I've never run across that terminology before. Good cop, bad cop thing, basically. That makes sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather suspicious and I reverted the removal of the sockpuppet tags since the accounts in question were determined by CheckUser evidence and both the User:Hippies Little Brother and User:Nina Eve Slabber accounts were both protected for awhile over removal of the tags. The K'Anpo account has not been active for 8 days now, so blocking is probably not necessary. You are welcome to file a CheckUser request on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It may have been a good idea to try and bring me into this discussion. I used to edit as an IP, and have previously reverted vandalism on Wrestlecrap and RD Reynolds. As far as reverting a sockpuppet's vandalism, the user above falsely accused some IP editor of "vandalism" and then reverted said IP's comment on a talk page where the IP complained about vandalism! User:McJeff then got the IP temporarily blocked and removed his comment from the talk page, and then went and removed the very vandalism that the IP was complaining about in the first place! I merely reinstated the comment on the discussion page, and assumed good faith on User:McJeff's part. As far as removing tags, well, in the cases of User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me, we have been over this in excruciating detail before. I never REMOVED tags, these vandal-only accounts had ALREADY BEEN TAGGED on their discussion pages. I merely removed the second, redundant tags from the userpages. perhaps it would have been better to remove the discussion-page tags? Or maybe to just have ignored User:McJeff's ignorance? User:McJeff knows this very well, as I explained it to him before at least twice. As far as the other 2 users are concerned, yes I have removed some tags. I clicked on the "contributions" tag on their pages, and was surprised to see that although these people were obviously vandal-only accounts, none of their vandalism was in any way shape or form connected to RD Reynolds, Wrestlecrap, or Pebbles Cereal. Unless there's something that I'm completely ignorant of, it seemed the correct thing to do, as they appear to be wholly unrelated to User:ECW500. If one checks the "suspected sockpuppets" page, one now sees that User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me are both now listed twice each, which I guess makes User:McJeff happy, but in no way convicts me of being anything other than a Wrestlecrap fan. K'Anpo (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, see the discussion pages and useraccount pages of these blocked sockpuppets. I explained there perfectly clearly what I did, and why, but now those explanations have been removed. If one checks Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees that both User:Bryan Alvarez and User talk:Bryan Alvarez are there as are both User:Youse can't see Me and User talk:Youse can't see Me, effectively adding up to four different sockpuppet accounts of user:ECW500. Perhaps someone else should remove the redundant tags, because after I did and explained why, those superfluous tags were readded, and my explanations removed. K'Anpo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can't help but notice that User:K'Anpo wasn't actually notified about this thread, and yet that after 8 days of inactivity, he found it instantaneously. Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts, I see K'Anpo's abrupt appearance in this thread as yet another something suspicious about this user.

Also note this diff where K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me of being connected with the sock farms.

Requesting that someone other than myself file a Checkuser, as the last time I filed an ECW500 related checkuser it was declined as "no need". McJeff (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do no always log in to post comments/edits, but I come here most days to READ and see changes etc. When I feel the need to edit something, or make discussion points only then do I log in. This was clearly such a need. Note that User:McJeff has been blocked TWICE before, once for removing points from discussion pages. I do not mind that when he has removed my comments from his discussion page, but clearly an administrator did mind as he blocked him for it! When he removed the IP's points from the Wrestlecrap discussion page, he went one further even accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet of ECW500. As noted above, and elsewhere, I removed the "sockpuppet" tags from the vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages, as THEY WERE ALREADY TAGGED AS SOCKPUPPETS OF ECW500 and I felt it was silly to tag the same vandalaccounts twice. That's it. As far as the other two, after checking their "contributions" I discovered that they had never vandalized RD Reynolds or Wrestlecrap. Apparently someone worked out that they ARE sockpuppets of ECW500, so it's my mistake and I apologize for that. However we need to understand someone trying to remove duplicate tags, and being genuinely ignorant on one hand, and on the other someone maliciously trying to brand others as socks using only half-truths. User:McJeff showed that I removed the tag from say User:Bryan Alvarez' one page, but never showed that I had already tagged him on his discussion page. Had he done so it would have been obvious that I was merely removing a duplicate tag, and NOT trying to "cover up" anything. Using my comments on his discussion page(in which I admittedly did go overboard being rather emotional at the time) as further "evidence" is equally strange. Also note that one of ECW500's banned socks is called User:Mcleff, and he is tagged on his discussion pageUser talk:Mcleff, and not his user page. If one views the Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees the first two vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me each still appear as two separate socks(totalling four)! All I was attempting to do was make them one sock each. If User:McJeff has problems with that, okay, but that doesn't make me a sock any more than it makes that IP, and it probably won't stop him removing people's innocent and valid comments from discussion pages. K'Anpo (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the "sock of ECW500"'s "vandalism" was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWrestleCrap&diff=286469096&oldid=285908360. Just because User:McJeff claims that this IP is a sock of ECW500 does not make it so, any more than his claim that I am. This was even discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_68#WrestleCrap_article_filling_up_with_cruft.3F where I pointed out the same topic on Talk:WrestleCrap. In User:McJeff's eyes that makes both me and the IP who raised it in the first place "socks of ECW500"! One needs only to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMcJeff to see who the real disruptive editor is. K'Anpo (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, does lying about someone's block record count as "disruptive"?

Just for outside clarification, I've been blocked once in 4 and a half years on wikipedia - for forgetting about 3RR. That block was undone ahead of schedule.

Also, about "innocent" IP that K'Anpo is accusing me of having falsely reverted for vandalism was, in fact, blocked as a sock.

I hate dealing with these defamatory rants from other editors, as ignoring it makes you look bad and responding somehow always drags you down to their level. McJeff (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the only defamatory ranting is coming from you. The IP was blocked as a sock, only because you hounded them and once again showed half-truths and facts, without stuff such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floater320&diff=prev&oldid-286461060

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lacksjdasfd&diff=prev&oldid=287605323

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bananasgorilla&diff=prev&oldid=287605627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADementedSon%diff=prev&oldid=287794722

The IP was "blocked as a sockpuppet" because of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan_Alvarez&diff=prev&oldid=286600411

however someone has already made the edit(as the IP did explain) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk3ABryanAlvarez&diff=286600385&oldid=286485900 which User:McJeff "forgot" to mention when he reported the IP as a sock. The IP explained this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.245.171.28 It was AFTER this that User:McJeff deliberately deleted the IP comments on the Talk:WrestleCrap page, and I reverted the comments about the "WrestleCrap Radio Cruft".

As for myself, my edits include http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youse_can't_see_Me&diff=prev&oldid=287073352 and I left explanations on the User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages that the new tags were removed only because there were already sockpuppet tags on the User_talk:Bryan Alvarez and User_talk:Youse can't see Me pages!

As far as the other two were concerned this is pure ignorance on my part as I only checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nina_Eve_Slabber and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hippies_Little_Brother and saw no vandalism of RD Reynolds, WrestleCrap or Pebbles Cereal. User:McJeff can twist facts, display only certain edits while deliberately ignoring others, and as we saw even get an innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet. He is also fond of removing comments from pages, which has already gotten him blocked. But why is he so interested in my edits? How was he even aware that I had made those?

In User:McJeff's own words "...ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks..." yet who is the one who trolled the site and "found" this information? I have only discovered this after wasting much time reading the logs, yet User:McJeff seems very aware of the inner workings of User:ECW500's warped mind.

It is not unusual for innocent users to be "Tagged" or "branded" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BongWarrior&oldid=293452084

So what have we learned? That User:McJeff a previously blocked user, who has already been warned for removing other poster's comments, has already gotten one IP blocked by only displaying selected facts, and in his mind that IP "must" be a sock. When I reverted that IP's legitimate comments, User:McJeff obviously developed a grudge, and now used half-truths and out and out lies to "brand" me as a sock too! K'Anpo (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as to the IP note the date/time of his/her blocking and the duration....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A41.245.171.28

(note also that User:Mentifisto did not regard the IP as a sock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk&3AWrestleCrap&diff=286843633&oldid=286839123 , after yet another of User:ECW500's socks, this one called User:Marycolemanfan (and see User_talk:Marycolemanfan , making a note that Marycolemanfan is tagged as a sock on the discussion page, and not the userpage) had vandalized the same page, and User:Mentifisto reverted it to the IP's version!)

Now during that period when the IP was BLOCKED as a sockpuppet as per User:McJeff half-truths and lies, User:ECW500 struck again under the moniker User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul, making destructive edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=287076846 Following this obvious vandalism consistent with User:ECW500, User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul was rightfully blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ECW500.

Some notable facts are that a)user:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul vandalized User:GaryColemanFan's discussion page during the period when the IP that User:McJeff had accused of being a sockpuppet of ECW500 was blocked b)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul is indeed a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 c)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul (ie User:ECW500 for they are the same person) falsely accused User:GaryColemanFan, an editor who has spent much time both reverting ECW500's vandalism and also having his page vandalized by ECW500, of being a sock. That's right, User:GaryColemanFan was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 by User:ECW500 himself at a time when the IP could not possibly have been involved as he/she had been blocked temporarily thanks to the lies of User:McJeff!! K'Anpo (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this topic is nearly "at the top" now, so I would just like to make a few more points... Having reread this discussion it struck me that User:McJeff made some startling comments on this very page, such as "ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks" and "Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts". Well, I certainly didn't know that until User:McJeff pointed it out. He seems to be well aware of User:ECW500 's activities. And, as shown above, I AM one of the "people who fight his vandalism efforts". He also said that "K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me(meaning User:McJeff) of being connected with the sock farms". I never did any such thing. I merely stated that his making this accusation against ME being ECW500, after I'd already explained any prior misunderstandings, was a suspicious action. It was User:McJeff himself who volunteered the idea that there may be some connection between him and User:ECW500!

Furthermore, User:McJeff knew exactly how long it had been since I last edited. And how strange that he waited until I had been inactive for more than week before he presented this "evidence" of his (refuted above) on this page. Did he perhaps think that I might be on vacation or something, and would thus be unable to defend myself? We already know(as shown above with the IP editor, another person who fights the vandalism efforts of ECW500) that User:McJeff has already successfully gotten an innocent editor blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500, and that User:ECW500 continued his vandalism while this supposed "sockpuppet" was blocked! User:McJeff certainly did not think that I would find his attack on me, and when presented with counterevidence resorted to insults such as accusing me of "defamatory ranting" and claims that even replying to me is "dragging [him] down to my level". He never actually gives any real replies, besides boasting that he got an innocent editor blocked as a sockpuppet of ECW500. And User:McJeff certainly never thought that I would be so anal as to spend the better part of 2 hours reading through revision histories and logs connected with User:ECW500, making notes to present on this page!

As noted above, User:ECW500 has already falsely accused users, including User:Bongwarrior (an administrator no less!) of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500. More interestingly, he accused User:GaryColemanFan of being a "good" sock of User:ECW500. Yet those are 2 of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, and both have tirelessly fought the vandalism of User:ECW500. Now User:McJeff accuses ME of being a "good hand sock" (which most people here didn't even know what that meant in a manner suspiciously similar to the way that User:ECW500 accused User:GaryColemanFan of the very same thing! We can thus see that both User:McJeff and User:ECW500 are in the habit of accusing people who revert User:ECW500's (and User:McJeff's as per my revision on the Talk:WrestleCrap page) vandalism of being sockpuppets and/or "good hand" sockpuppets of User:ECW500! We can see that User:McJeff has already succeeded once! We see that since I actually REPLIED to his accusations that he first made personal insults, let slip a few choice bits of information, and then disappeared! In fact earlier I did NOT accuse him in a roundabout way of anything. But now, as they say, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in the duckpond....." K'Anpo (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page that was at National History Museum since there was no indication of primary topic in English (it was the Malaysia one). I also performed several moves/title changes to the articles mentioned there in a spree and some from the National Historical Museum page. I hope I wasn't too bold to putting some order on those museum articles. Could some admin like to check out whether I have left anything (histories, etc) at a place it is not supposed to be? ThanksShadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glanced through, couldn't see anything technically problematic. Thanks for the hard work! ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowmorph, well done! Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, well done. User F203 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a stolen picture and replaced it with another picture. Looking into it, that picture is stolen, too. Given that I saw 2 stolen picture of 3, the limited sample size does show a potentially serious theft problem in Wikipedia. How should Wikipedia deal with this? Please give advice below.

The article is on the main page so many people read it, including me. That also means that many people saw the stolen photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A330-200F.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-GZCP.jpg

When Wikipedia is full of stolen pictures, it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and a project of some kids who are just copying stuff. This is bad. User F203 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, I see a similar problem about 4-5 threads up where there is a mention of copyright violations. User F203 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a number of processes in place to deal with copyright infringement. There is a process page for image issues at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion that hopefully will help you determine how best to deal with these issues when you find them. If you are unsure, you can always take a matter to WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)First, neither of the two images you pointed to were "stolen". They are used under a claim of fair use, regardless of whether or not the claim is justifiable. Second, if you feel a claim of fair use is not appropriate, please either tag the image using a template such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominate it for deletion. If the claim is not appropriately justified within 1 week, the image will be deleted. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. If you wish to properly enforce copyright laws, please learn something about them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually copyright infringement can be synonymous with intellectual property theft. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a misnomer, since nothing is being stolen --NE2 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is: the value of the rights to the image. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't consider fair use to be intellectual property theft. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't steal something that the "owner" still has. Can you imagine going to the police station and telling them your TV was stolen, but it's still in your living room? It's insulting to compare unauthorized copying with actual theft. Stealing physical pictures makes you a thief, not making a copy, whether or not it falls under fair use. How would you like it if people started calling you a rapist for "raping the English language", by applying a word - theft - to a situation where it doesn't fit? --NE2 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You own a piece of land, your property. I notice that it's empty and no one's using it, so I go ahead and build a building on it. What's wrong with that? I haven't taken anything from you, have I, you still own the property? Well, yes, I've taken from you the right to do what you want with that property, and the right to build whatever kind of building you want, or none at all, if that's your choice, so I have definitely taken something from you. What I've taken is immaterial and noncoporeal, it's not an armchair or a backscratcher, but it exists nonetheless, and you no longer have it.

Similarly, when someone uses someone's else intellectual property without permission, they've taken away the ability to decide when and where that material can be used, and for what fee. Suppose that you're rabidly opposed to the Internet, you're an old fart and you've decided that nothing that you own is going to be on the web. Well, that's an absurd thing to decide, but it's nonetheless your decision to make, not anyone else's, so that when they place your image, your tune, your film, your short story, your essay on the Web, they've taken away your ability to control the way your owned material is used, your right to decide who makes copies of it - the copyright.

Now, it just so happens that under American law, copyrights are not eternal, they exist for only a limited amount of time (a time period that's gotten longer and longer, thanks to the efforts and money of Disney and their friends), and they are not absolute, there are exceptions to the rights that you control, and one exception is the "fair use" doctrine which says that for certain purposes and certain kinds of use, it's OK to make use of a limited amount of copyrighted material without violating the copyright owner's rights, so there is no "theft" involved. But, if I instead totally usurp your rights by making use of your intellectual property beyond these exceptions, perhaps even make money by doing it, I've reduced the value of your copyright, and have, in effect, taken away from you not only your control of the material, but also the ability to make money from it - and that is, indeed, theft. The fact that you can't report it to your local police station is completely irrelevant -- they won't take complaints about insider trading either, because both are civil matters and not criminal ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, the imaginative and figurative extension of concrete words to more ethereal uses has been going on for a long time, probably since the invention of language, so complaining about it is pretty much pissing into the wind. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an absurd argument that taking away any right is theft. If I go door to door in a development that bans soliciting, am I stealing time from others? If I jaywalk, am I stealing the road? If I argue on AN, am I stealing bandwidth and disk space? If so, I'm a thief, and proud of it. But others may not be so happy to be called thieves, and you may want to avoid doing so in case you happen to violate BLP by calling someone identifiable a thief.

By the way, how many legs does a horse have? --NE2 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to stop myself, I have to note that the US Supreme Court would seem to support that copyright infringement is not theft in Dowling v. United States (1985), and yet the US federal government nevertheless adopts the term in the NET Act. This hair can be evenly divided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty silly place to discuss this, so let's agree to disagree and not steal any more AN space or rape any more horses er...whatever. --NE2 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Disney that pushed for or benefited from Intellectual property rights. It's also poor working artist schlubs like myself. Taking an image that I spent 100 or 200 hrs making, reproducing, and profiting from it is part of my liveliood. If you took those images, did the same thing to them, and thereby took my customers, potential new customers I'll never now meet, etc., it is under intellectual property rights laws, theft. Just because you can make cheap or free copies of stuff doesn't give you the legal right to. And just because I still retain the original, doesn't mean something hasn't been stolen from me.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Whatever404 opened a section on the talk page. The discussion can continue there.

I gotta work so no time to help fix this, but Operation Rescue (Kansas), which was a poor article to begin with, is getting a bit of POV-based attention today. An experienced user might want to watchlist this. Like I say, I've gotta work so I don't have the time. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, & while this is a hotbutton issue, (1) Whatever404 has been rewriting the heck out of it, & after just a brief glance IMHO seems to have markedly improved the article, & (2) it doesn't help the situation to put comments like this on your reverts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about it, but it seemed that after Whatever404's editing, the page actually did became unbalanced with too much negative information (IMO). However, I think some of that information should definitely remain (most of it, actually). We can take this to the talk page, where Whatever404 has started a section to discuss the changed (Talk:Operation Rescue (Kansas)#Rewrite). hmwithτ 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That description of events ("the page became unbalanced") does not make much sense to me, because perhaps 95% of my editing was simply moving existing material around. I interleaved the duplicated material at OSA and OR and moved it to History of Operation Rescue, and then performed a similar sorting of the remaining material between the three locations. I introduced barely any information at all. Perhaps my edits improved readability and made it possible to scrutinize the material, but I don't see this as a situation of me having introduced POV. Whatever404 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Llywrch. I actually had been planning that rewrite for weeks, and it was only when the Tiller tragedy broke that I finally went ahead and did it. I'm glad you find it to be an improvement. Whatever404 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, "oversight" means having something removed so the public can't see it. In the rest of the world, "oversight" means some sort of policing and review by another person. That's why I changed the title to avoid confusion. User F203 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are here: Talk:Greece#Requested_edits_to_the_article. There is a relevant discussion in the talk page also. The hat link fixing edit (#3) is minor and should be done. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these produced an long discussion; it is inadequately sourced. See Talk:Greece#Freedom or Death. This appeal is forumshopping, by an editor who has declined to supply secondary sources for his proposed edit to a protected article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its probably not really forum shopping, but the note is definitely not needed. The {{editprotected}} template (already used there) is sufficient to attract an admin to review the proposed changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing against using a tertiary source if no secondary can be found. I am sorry I have never encountered the word forumshopping before. That isn't what I did since at least one of the edits was very much legitimate. I believed this was the way as I don't really know any other administrator of Wikipedia that is not involved at the Greece situation. I thought this to be better than randomly asking an admin since this could be admins knowledgable of the subject matter. If you see above I also requested the help of some admins on unrelated issues. If however this is thought to be an inappropriate way I didn't think of it that way. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict re:) I didn't know that the edit-protected template automatically notifies admins, hence this post. Sorry. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to help a new totally unexperienced IP editor with his concern of the lack of a Mythology section[4] (see proposed edit #2). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Shadowmorph didn't realize that WhatLinksHere on {{Editprotected}} is not watched, then this is not forum-shopping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been redirected by a user. There is a long ongoing discussion on the TalkPage that shows there was no consensus at all to do so Now. First i have reverted the redirection. But the page is redirected again. In fact the page, TalkPage, and history has been Just deleted. The outcome of the AfD is still under discussion and is going to deleting review. Please help me to lift the redirection because so there is no quality merger possible. Iqinn (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, car crash alert. Right, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was closed with the decision to merge the article into Mahmudiyah killings. However, Jauerback (talk · contribs), the nominator at the AfD, shouldn't've been the one to do it - and certainly not a merge-by-redirect. That said, just undoing the redirect and then starting the AfD discussion all over again, this time on the article's talk page? No, that shouldn't happen either. However, either way, there's no administrator intervention needed - this is a content dispute. WP:DR is down the hall. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - undoing the redirection would not necessary start AdD again. That could be done in the deletion review section of Wikipedia. A simple redirect could bring us back fast to a state where we could wait the outcome of the deletion review and based on that perform a merger in a good way. If you still think WP:DR is the better way i will trust you and go there. Thanks for the help. Iqinn (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hhh - There is another crash. The redirection brings people to the wrong page. Coming from Abeer's link on the Mahmudiyah killings and other topic related pages, they are redirected to Mahmudiyah killings. As they search for Abeer's information and looking for the TalkPage to work on the ongoing discussion they click on the redirection link at the top. What brings them to the wrong page! Abeer Qassim Hamza an older page that says the talk page and history has been deleted. That's why i said above the page has been deleted (very similar names). People needs to be redirected to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi with the banner of intended merger, the history and the TalkPage with the ongoing discussion. That is a headache. I think that needs help of the administrators to fix quickly as it could lead to the wrong impression information had been lost. Iqinn (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Abeer Qassim Hamza to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. This is a temporary measure. This did not require use of admin tools. This is not an endorsement of any attempt to overturn the AfD merge decision by discussing the merge in other forums until a forum can be found that agrees not to merge. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I didn't merge the article by simply redirecting it. I actually did merge it, but it was reverted for further discussion on the talk page and a possible DRV, which I didn't oppose. Whether I should have been the one to attempt the merge or not is another discussion, but I don't feel that there was anything wrong with that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the administators. Could you please protect Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi until the discussion over a merger and the deletion review process has finished. This has been agreed on by a large group who are involved people. WP:Talk:Abeer_Qassim_Hamza_al-Janabi#Article_for_deletion_review) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will check for now, but in the future please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

Could we have a a few more admins than usual keep an eye on AIV? With the implantation of bot reports for the abuse filter, there seems to be a report coming in every minute or two. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About every 30 seconds (==crapflood). I blocked the bot and notified the owner, since the bot was clearly hindering the very process it was intended to help. Either the bot needs to be changed or the reporting mechanism needs to be changed; either way, flooding genuine admin-attention matters with stuff that doesn't seem to problematic won't do. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the block, per the rationale by Redvers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been discussion and/or consensus about blocking users and IPs that have triggered the abuse filter multiple times, but have not actually successfully edited? It's a reasonable argument that such blocks would be preventative, but one could also argue that the abuse filter is doing the preventing.... -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Preventative blocking seems to be being given as a reason for flooding AIV, but since the IPs have often triggered hidden AFs, there's no way of knowing what was going on unless you're a member of the minority of the minority (AF privs and an admin). This is Not A Good Thing on so many levels. I don't think a bot can judge this; and even if it can, the flooding is a Bad Thing. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. We're supposed to wait until the users manage to bypass the filters before we're allowed to block them? What's the point of even having it then? Frankly, that's just mind-boggling. As I said on my talk page, anyone can view the abuse filter log and the details of each log entry. Any admin can grant themself the abuse filter right to see private filters, though that's not really necessary as there's public descriptions of each filter, and the details of each hit are public. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the third time: You're not addressing the substantive point - either the bot's operation needs to be modified so that the crapflood doesn't happen, or the reporting mechanism needs to change. Flooding a vital page with null reports of activity that didn't happen is simply making vandalism prevention harder, not easier. The problem is with the bot or the reporting mechanism. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it, having to repeat myself in 2 places is slowing me down a bit though. Saying that they're "null reports" is just totally wrong. Just because the user wasn't successful doesn't mean they weren't trying to vandalize. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're working on it, but, again, either the bot's operation needs to be modified so that the crapflood doesn't happen, or the reporting mechanism needs to change. The problem is with the bot or the reporting mechanism. The other issues are secondary. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeating yourself, can you give an example of a bad report? Then we can discuss how to modify the bot's operation. Wknight94 ^talk 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's only so many times I can write the word "crapflood". The bot was crapflooding AIV. AIV was being crapflooded by the bot. The problem was AIV being crapflooded and the bot was doing it. The bot needs to not crapflood AIV any more. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that the abuse filters are too effective? I'm not just going to report less because there's too much vandalism. If you think certain things shouldn't be reported, please make some suggestions that I can actually implement. But just saying "don't report as much" isn't very helpful. Mr.Z-man 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about defining "crapflood"? You're sure they weren't legitimate reports and not "crap"? You checked some? You can tell they weren't trying to vandalize? Point one out please? Wknight94 ^talk 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of them. C.20. I blocked one. The rest were crap. Every one I checked, the bot added two more. It was impossible to keep up with. Whilst I was doing it, the bot continued to add more, all of which were also not blockable. The problem is the crapflood or the reporting mechanism. Whilst I was cleaning out the crapflood, I wasn't blocking actual vandals, and others were diverting to complain on the bot's talk page or on this page. The crapflooding or the reporting mechanism is faulty. One or both needs to be changed. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, except for your complaints, everyone else on my talk page was being reasonable and giving useful suggestions. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the AF log for 82.37.108.113. Mr. Z-man, can you tell if that is four separate edits or four logs on two edits? Can your bot tell? Regardless, the point of the bot is to find when someone is trying to vandalize. In this case, the IP was trying and even mixed in some successful vandalism. So do folks prefer to change the settings the bot uses for reporting? Maybe wait for five distinct attempted edits? Or 10? Or maybe a combination of attempted edits and successful edits? None of the above? Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the timestamps, the first 2 hits were from 1 edit, then there were 2 more separate save attempts. Note that if a user is warned, but ignores it and tries to save anyway (regardless of what action, if any, the filter takes after the warning), it counts as 2 separate attempts with different timestamps.

I'm almost done implementing some of Luk's suggestions. Rather than having a list of filters to ignore and one to report immediately for, it will have a list to report immediately for and another for filters that can be considered vandalism. So rather than requiring filters to be excluded from the count, it will require each filter to be explicitly included. I've also moved the filter lists to a wiki page that admins can edit - User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. The bot will load the lists on startup, and then every 5 minutes while running. It will also wait for 10 hits for filters in the "vandalism" list before reporting to AIV.

The changes won't affect the reporting to the IRC channel and the lists will not apply to IRC reports (though this can be changed if desired.

I'm working on a way to detect multiple hits caused by one edit now. Mr.Z-man 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just like to thank Z-man for his work on this bot. Let's try to cut him a little slack here, yes? He didn't have to write it. –xeno^talk 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on my talk page and here, the operation of the bot will change.

• Users won't be reported to AIV until 10 hits in 5 minutes.
• Rather than excluding certain filters, it now uses a list of filters to include when counting hits
• The lists are in a public config page - User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. The current lists are from comments by Luk and Wknight94 on my talk page.
• Multiple filter hits from the same edit attempt (that is, where the username and timestamp for 2 hits are the same) will only be counted as 1 hit.
• The reporting to IRC won't change and won't be affected by the filter lists.

-- Mr.Z-man 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the bot based on the above. Thanks again for your work on this. –xeno^talk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, very nice job! And kudos to almost everyone for their patience. Wknight94 ^talk 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if it wasn't for REdvers, we'd not have a bot that was operating functionally and correctly per policy and guidelines. I don't know what the fuss is about, especially since a bot was operating without bounds and throwing out null or unenforceable entries. Don't be a dick about it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except all of the ideas I implemented I would have done anyways and were suggested by other people on my talk page, and all but one was suggested before the bot was blocked. If anything, having to reply here just slowed me down. I would also note that since I was online at the time, blocking it wasn't necessary. Had someone asked me to, I would have stopped it. In any case, I fail to see what policy the bot was violating. Last I checked, annoying an admin isn't against policy. The bot was not operating without bounds, the bounds it was using were just found to be too loose, which is the point of the trial, to determine these things. Mr.Z-man 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last bit of my statement was in reply to "...And kudos to almost everyone for their patience..." seicer | talk | contribs 03:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which in turn was in reply to the unnecessarily belligerent rhetoric here. Why is the first message from Redvers on Mr. Z-man's talk page a block followed by hilarious crapflood complaints over and over. Why not "hey, could you turn off the bot until it works a little more cleanly?" Some attempt to understand what was happening and how to fix it? That's the trouble on the AN pages - too much comedic posing and too little constructive administration. But, I'm a dick so of course I would say that. Wknight94 ^talk 03:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks to Z for kicking ass on this bot. rootology (C)(T) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Thanks again, Mister Z! -- Luk ^talk 07:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, that wasn't the best of bug reports. Please read How to Report Bugs Effectively. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to Mr.Z for having acted admirably upon the request; the bot reporting will make much more efficient the dealing with those users. Cenarium (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike rude bot-masters at least as much as anyone here, but in Z-man's defense, I'd like to point out that responding to discussion threads while simultaneously trying to fix a bot will make anyone, er, "belligerent". Let's cut him some slack, & also keep the discussion about his bot on his Talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The User Page of editor GHcool contains many entries concerning the State of Israel. Do these entries not constitute a blog and thus violate the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy? What can be done about it? I have notified the user. (The user also has subpages giving his opinions on topics such as Zionism and The Lebanon war. What can be done about this, if anything should be done? Gavin (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having political positions on one's page is one thing. This seems to be a bit more than that given how much space he is using. On the other hand he is making helpful contributions outside. Maybe someone should talk to him politely and suggest he move the subpage content off-wiki? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin head over to WP:AIV and maybe work on the backlog? Thanks! Nburden ^(T) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up. Bot now blocked. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some more eyes on Air France Flight 447. My opinion is that there is a lot of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL going on there; others (including at least one other admin) disagree with me. I'm not pushing my point of view, but rather would appreciate others taking a look.  Frank  |  talk  19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...you can always remove any WP:OR (or at least at {{cn}} tags) or WP:CRYSTAL. I'd recommend, given the nature of the topic, discussing any changes on the talk page first, though, to avoid drama and possible an edit war. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well the talk page is worse than about 3x the size of the article... :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some feedback in regards to this? This is a direct spin-off from the horrific BLP abuses on Catherine Crier, that are so bad that Thatcher indefinitely semi protected the talk page, and Deskana the article fully indefinitely (which cannot be undone without Oversight approval). Apparently, Grawp has taken to abusing this BLP wildly. Go look at it's edit histories for all the hidden revisions. I asked Thatcher here about the situation, and minutes later got a Grawped here. Its a known fact now that Joker is Grawp, and that Grawp has been taking after the Crier article. To the point where I guess even the Crier reps may know about Grawp now, whose real identity is known.

I blocked the IP as a likely open proxy per every reasonable common sense duck test you can imagine--it's a known fact that Grawp breathes open proxies on trojanned and zombied Windows boxes and who knows what else, which is why he's unstoppable. I discussed this with Xeno here and apparently I didn't hit save fast enough (it was still open in a tab on my firefox) to unlock the editing of the talk page, so he shortened the block expressly against my written request that he get consensus. I never ask for my admin actions to not be undone, and go out of my way to say "Do what you need with them," so

1. I'm a bit miffed that he didn't do this, and I ask for both admin actions to be reviewed
2. I'm furious that I know now we've only been doing waste of time 24-31 hour blocks on these hordes of BLP-abusing proxies

If we block them 3-5 years--it's not abusive to IPs. They can ask for an unblock any time. rootology/equality 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP didn't make any BLP-violating edits, so 3-5 years seems entirely abusive to me. I checked for a proxy and found none. Seems like a standard 4chan-style distributed attack. The IP will be onto someone else shortly - it probably already is. If the target articles are locked down, what more can the IPs do but ask admins why they are so serious? –xeno^talk 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, if Root is right, you appear to have undone first and discussed after. That would be wheelwarring. Perhaps better to say why this isn't wheelwarring? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I discussed first and then implemented a compromise when he terminated the discussion on his last word. Further, his words weren't matching his actions (an issue I see now has been attributed to tabbed browsing, this could have been resolved with further discussion, but alas). –xeno^talk 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is going on since apparently all the actual edits have been oversighted into the void, but in general 4chan style attacks that involve repetitive behavior can often be good targets for the abuse filter. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to pen a filter but by the time I had it sorted, they were on to something else =] –xeno^talk 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't operate on the basis of blocking every innocent IP until they request unblocking (and as of a few minutes after they are used they are likely to be innocent users). Long term blocks on short term IPs are not effective or helpful to anyone. Not every IP which clicks on the links Grawp posts on /b/ is Grawp or an open proxy - it's far more commonly a board invasion. These IPs are extremely unlikely to be used by the same users again, so long blocks are simply not appropriate. See WP:IPB for more information on block lengths for IP addresses. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sums up succinctly my thoughts on the matter. Our default position is to block IPs for a reasonable amount of time appropriate to the offense, incrementally increasing the length as they re-offend. Not to jump immediately to a multi-year block on the back of a single juvenile vandalism to an admin's talk page. –xeno^talk 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't appropriate to block an IP for years at a time. And the "zomg BLP" scare tactics being employed here aren't particularly appropriate either. Please stop, Rootology. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks here have it right. The IPs that make the Grawp-ish attacks are just following instructions on the 4chan website to click a link provided by grawp and then click save. It is rare that any of them will actually be Grawp or open proxies. Block for 24 hours and submit to WP:OPP for checking if you want to be sure. And it is usually good to semi-protect whatever page is being attacked by the /b/tards for around 24 hours. (Although, with the amount of traffic on /b/, 3 hours is probably enough.) As for the rest, just follow the standard Grawp response, revert, block and ignore. Thatcher 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is also worth noting that janitors on /b/ give invasion threads and the like short shrift, and will often delete an active thread if it involves invading another site. Don't even bother blocking - just hunt for open proxies amongst the IPs (not likely since 4chan bans OPs as well) and semi the affected pages indefinitely unless there's a very compelling reason not to. Also, in re Grawp's RL identity being known - not so. Grawp is an ED collective; I'd wager pennies to pineapples that J.D.H. has nothing at all to do with its most recent actions, especially given that Grawp has taken to harassing him as well. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is using another editors user's talk page as his own. --Abce2|AccessDenied 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and welcomed. User claims to be Staecker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll AGF for a few more minutes, but if/when they revert me, they can go. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps which way you AxF at all, note that the username is "So Fucking Retarded". –xeno^talk 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Blocked the sock, someone else got the other. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The histories of File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg need to be merged and File:Death.jpg deleted so commons:File:Death.jpg shows through. As it stands now, Death has a file and Death (DC Comics) has the image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages cannot be moved in filespace. I'll have to just copy the data, and cut-and-paste the history into a subpage. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems now that the Commons is obscuring the old file. Ouch. Anyone have a way to get around this? -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got me. Maybe it's time to get a coder involved? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually uploaded the old file. Hopefully everything is ok now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.23.223.119 is persistently vandalizing a series of pages, and I've adden the warning templates up to Level 4, but I'm not an admin so can't block -- not sure if this is the right place to request a block, but one is needed at the moment.

Australian Matt (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it those tennis players weren't really on huge winning streaks? Blocked, WP:AIV is the best place to get many admin eyes on future such ongoing vandalism. –xeno^talk 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - will post notices there in future - thanks! Australian Matt (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I just indef-semi'd a couple of articles and would appreciate feedback from other admins as to whether it might be a good idea to do a few more; a look at their recent history will give an indication as to why I did it, and why it might be a good idea to do related articles... thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather see these protected for a year and then re-reviewed when they expire. –xeno^talk 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would indef fully protect ?, it's a redirect prone to vandalism, but not semi the others at all: insufficient vandalism/disruption - it was almost null edits. Even considering the background, it's not worth it. Cenarium (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles should be Unprotected — the level of disruption does clearly not warrant an indefinite semi-protection. — Aitias // discussion 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it warrants semiprot either (from a CU perspective). -- Luk ^talk 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured it'd be a good approach to cutting off our special friend's most recent clever attempts at self-aggrandizement, but if y'all think it's a bad idea, unprotect away. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with unprotection. Protecting forever would be exactly what they wanted in the first place. If it persists and you feel strongly, maybe an abuse filter would do the trick. Wknight94 ^talk 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I could figure out how the abuse filter worked, I'd suggest it. Never mind; unprotected. I'll skip to the 'I' in 'RBI' next time. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempdude (talk · contribs) and Tom harryson (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person. The thing is, Tempdude began his Wikipedia career by changing the sockpuppet tag on various blocked accounts to claim that they are sockpuppets of Amorrow (talk · contribs). Based on that alone, it's clear that they are someone who knows ancient Wikipedia history and have come here with some sort of agenda. Is there any point in trying to go to Checkuser to see if it can be determined who they might be, or would that just be rejected as fishing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since both accounts are now indef blocked, a checkuser will not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but there's obviously an agenda here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a checkuser would only be carried out if there is strong evidence to suggest there are further socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Who then was a gentleman?, If you're just idly curious which troll this was, then no, don't bother. Half of the long-term trolls are the same people as the other half anyway. Or maybe all of the LTA cases are actually just one person. Who cares. No one is (or should be) keeping track. Wknight94 ^talk 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's got a sock farm going on, it might be good to know about, would it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts were created a few minutes before attacking. Checkuser would have been no use even beforehand, let alone now. There's no sock farm. Just get some short-term semi-protection in place and be done with it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by which IP and which useragent? Checkuser would be invaluable in making sure there aren't more lurking under the hood. //roux   21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being vague, but if those accounts are what I think they are, someone else has already checked them. If they're not, then they don't need checking. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sock farm.. And you know that how? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it along, people! Both accounts belong to a banned user and were CU'ed more than two hours ago. If you want to get a quick check, go to WP:SPI or contact a CheckUser instead of posting here. End of discussion. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. What wikidrama was there? All I wanted was a civil response. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Both "sides" here are reasonable positions. There is often very little to gain from checking simple vandals; if they really have sleepers, they can be blocked when they start vandalizing. However, sometimes there are things that can be learned. Any editor should feel free to contact a checkuser or make a report in the "Quick Requests" section of WP:SPI, and the checkusers will decide whether it is worth their time to look it up. Thatcher 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I had asked about this prior, and the reason I had asked it is because the article I wanted re-directed was a protected one and so I couldn't edit it myself

I want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile,_Alabama_mayoral_election,_2009&action=edit&redlink=1 redirected to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Municipal_Elections,_2009

My work in progress article on the same subject.--Genovese12345 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the correct title? It doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) protected. – Toon^(talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When I try to redirect I get this response

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, blacklisted for some odd reason. I've created the redirect. – Toon^(talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is there anyway to block a user from looking at your contributions sections, say, if you think a user is specifically going through all your contributions for whatever reason and you don't want them to do so?--Genovese12345 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider posting such questions not here but rather on the WP:HELPDESK. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the sounds of it you should read (particularly the second paragraph of) this section of policy. It has some useful information. – Toon^(talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How often does the above category get dealt with? I do a lot of other image work and I'd be willing to work on it, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Docu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE. The user's signature has no links to his user page or user talk page, and also does not have date/timestamps. Example: [5]

Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal_links: It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. (emphasis added, note "must")

I asked User:Docu about this on his talk page on 2 June 2009 [6]. The threaded discussion can be seen here [7]. User:Docu did not respond to my request to please add a link to his userpage and/or talk page in his signature.

Another user, Jayron32 (talk · contribs), again raised the issue with User:Docu, in a post to his talk page on 3 June 2009 [8]. LibStar (talk · contribs) also echoed this request [9]. User:Docu did not respond to this, and instead blanked his talk page [10].

I put this up here for the community to discuss - it seems highly inappropriate for an admin's signature to blatantly violate WP:SIGNATURE as User:Docu's does.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. Viridae^Talk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable, actually. He also ignored a request from me to change it. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has ignored countless requests to change it. Viridae^Talk 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the previous AN discussion on the subject. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the above proposal by Viridae (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this is a genuine problem. It seems that there have been several complaints about it, and no explanation from Docu why he does not bring his signature into compliance with accepted standards. This baffles me, because I know him as a good editor and administrator. If we obtain consensus here that he should make his signature standards-compliant, I'm ready to act on it should he choose not to.  Sandstein  09:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a block until Docu complies with set standards on signatures. seicer | talk | contribs 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there's some excess free time around here so I'll take this opportunity to advertise Wikipedia:Alleviate negative unsourced statements. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite. Those who are playing the "no explanation" card should take note that this explanation was given five and one half years ago. It's understandable that someone might get to the point of ignoring repeated requests for the same explanation, over and over again, after five years. Please find something better to do with your time than harrassing someone, and threatening to harrass xem with administrator tools no less, for "not explaining" something that xe has already explained, long since.

  And if you don't understand the practice that some people employ of archiving user talk pages to the page history, Docu has a five-year-old explanation of that, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure that a block is mandated at this point. It may be, I have not decided myself on how we as a community should deal with this. However, I think he is clearly being disruptive. It is quite important to note that he DOES occasionally use the proper signature (with a link and timestamp) in situations where he is more likely to be publicly noticed. If you check his contribs list, and look at his postings to ANI, he tends to sign his posts. On article talk pages and user talk pages, he does not. Also, it looks clear that the signature is not autotyped by the "four tildes" method, but hand typed, as he occasionally makes typos when adding it. See [11]. Thus, he DOES have a valid signature, and is willing to use it, but only in cases where he anticipates getting a lot of flack, such as at ANI. If its not as public a place as ANI, he can't seem to be bothered to hit the four tildes. Which seems rather odd to me, since four tildes takes less keystrokes than hand-typing "User:Docu" which is what he appears to be doing. That only further adds to my feeling that he is intentionally making it more difficult for people to contact him or chronologize his comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe he commented somewhere that he has a nonstandard keyboard, and the tilde is difficult to produce. –xeno^talk 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And from xyr point of view, you are harrassing xem over something that xe explained, and gave good reason for, five and a half years ago, without looking for that explanation first. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no, not a good reason, actually. Even if he can't easily type tildes, there is a shortcut section below the edit box. One click on the four tildes there inserts four tildes into the edit box. (And what's with the "xyr" and "xe"? Is this xome xort of xlang that one needs to use to be politically xorrect nowadays?)  Sandstein  13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's some kind of gender-neutral pronoun that has been floated about for some time now (wikt:xe). –xeno^talk 13:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and per [12], it appears that Docu uses a Swiss German keyboard layout, as I do. The tilde is indeed produced with [AltGr]-[^], and the [^] key is just to the left of the [Backspace] key. I've never had any trouble signing my posts using tildes typed like that, as I am doing now:  Sandstein  13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why doesn't he just use -- User:Docu, which looks exactly the same? hmwithτ 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation for that was given five and a half years ago. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a good answer. He can just press the button. hmwithτ 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a job for the abuse filter --NE2 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is an "insert 4 tildes" link on every edit page. I hope he doesnt have a non-standard wikipedia. Livewireo (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was about to give him a pass, per Uncle G's explanation, but thankfully I edit-conflicted with Livewireo above, who reminded me that its not 4 keystrokes, its one mouse click to sign a post. I don't think its unreasonable given the ease with which he could sign correctly that he be asked to do so. At the very least, I do highly recommend that he have the forsight to understand that people are going to find something out-of-place, and post a notice of some sort on his talk page to stop this sort of nonsense from blowing up as it has this time. But seriously, click the little signature button. It would save all of us from some grief --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't like to use a mouse, maybe someone can write a script that gives him a "sign post" button that's easy to tab to? --NE2 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(multi-e/c, slow to post, sorry) Users could be forgiven for not knowing that an explanation was provided five and a half years ago. I'm very interested to hear that Docu has a nonstandard keyboard and that it is "difficult" to use the tilde key. I hope that none of the other keys are difficult to use, but perhaps after five and a half years a new keyboard is in order? Alternatively, Docu could use their mouse to click on the signature button above the edit window - unless they also have a nonstandard mouse.

Apologies if I seem short on patience and goodwill in this post; it's because I took the time to review Docu's talk page history - a task made much harder considering that Docu doesn't archive their talk page, but instead blanks it with the comment "move old talk to page history" (see for example the "archiving" of this somewhat bizarre conversation). Here is an abbreviated list - I didn't catch all the comments, I only listed new sections, not other users adding their own concerns, and I only went back 1,000 edits:-

• Gary King - Jul 2008 [13]
• Quiddity - Sep 2008 [14]
• Adambro - Sep 2008 [15] and a polite follow-up [16]
• Tbsdy lives - Sep 2008 [17] (follow-up, couldn't find the original)
• JzG - Sep 2008 [18]
• TenOfAllTrades - Oct 2008 [19]
• Reedy - Apr 2009 [20]
• Stifle - May 2009 [21]
• TreasuryTag - May 2009 [22]
• Hipocrite - May 2009 [23]
• Cirt - Jun 2009 [24]

The lack of proper signature, the non-user-friendly talk page blanking, and the stubborn refusal to answer simple questions from an editor in good standing (see "bizarre" diff above) add up to a very unhelpful administrator. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? hmwithτ 14:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he prefers not to use his mouse to click on the 'sign post' button, I bet that a polite request at either the Help Desk or the Computing Reference Desk would turn up scads of people who could help him remap the tilde to a more convenient key on his keyboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to block him, get consensus to change WP:SIG into a policy, and prescribe a penalty for violating it. Otherwise, this has been discussed to death. Don't we have more important things to be doing besides rehashing this? Oppose block. --Kbdank71 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have gone to Docu's talk page to ask him to include a link, but stopped when I saw how many times he had been asked. As I noted on Hipocrite's talk page, Docu has been asked dozens of times. Clearly a fair amount of people find his signature to be problematic, and it's troublesome that he is unwilling to make such a minor adjustment. --auburnpilot talk 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to one of the unanswered questions in the thread Sheffield Steel highlighted, Docu became an admin in Dec 2003, with a vote of 6/0/0 (7/0/0 if you count the nom) --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. This isn't AN-drama mongering (ok, not just drama mongering), the number of people who have asked Docu shows that it is innately disruptive. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Docu's been here for a long time, to the days where a few people could say "ok, looks cool enough" RfA's were the norm, as linked above. It may be tough to break long, bad habits like this, but it really is quite annoying to interact with someone without a valid sig. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Viridae's proposal. Docu's lack of a signature manages to inconvenience other editors wherever he goes. Wikipedia is a group project, where you should not deliberately be unhelpful to other editors, and mastering a modern keyboard is not difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of like the one guy at work who drinks the last cup of coffee without ever making a fresh pot, or who cuts into the queue at the photocopier. They're behaviours and activities which make things slightly easier for the person who does them, but which also tend to slightly inconvenience everyone else in the workplace. It's not something that gets an employee fired, but it creates bad feelings all around.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to handle this class of problem well. We generally feel – with some justification – that social norms shouldn't have to be codified. It shouldn't be necessary to raise an RfC over this, or threaten blocks, or write new policy, or escalate all the way up to ArbCom. Everyone involved feels silly, because after all, it's such a little thing. (Has anyone ever been in a workplace where management issued a memo reminding people to make fresh coffee and not cut in line at the photocopier? Wouldn't everyone involved both look and feel like children?)

This doesn't need a {policy} or {guideline}. A substantial number of editors have been asking for a long period of time for one editor to modify his behaviour such that it conforms to accepted practice. The change will represent a trivially-minor inconvenience (which most editors already put up with without difficulty), and will have the long-term benefit of making things a little bit easier for every other editor. It's what Miss Manners – or any good utilitarian – would do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sig is an irritation, but I'm actually more bothered by the poor, I might say willfully obstructive interaction, as highlighted in that not just bizarre but unpleasant thread. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. the sig is a relatively small thing, but what bothers me is that this indicates an attitude that is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If he's willing to annoy other people for no good reason with the sig, what other, more harmful things, will he tend to do? The cluebat seems excessive, but in light of the failure of other means of persuasion, what's left? Does Wikipedia tolerate editors who behave this way, or not? Friday (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Dweller's point above (particularly about the bizarre discussion), and also with TenofAllTrades' coffee-pot analogy even further up. If Docu isn't going to start behaving co-operatively, in a way conducive to "building" a collaborative encyclopedia, then he has no place here. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I note in the user's most recent post he used a signature with a link and a timestamp. Is it possible he's taken on board Jayron's latest urging to use a signature and this is much ado about nothing? –xeno^talk 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contribs, he seems to link his sig when commenting on AN and AN/I. --auburnpilot talk 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Add me to the list of users who've requested Docu to change his signature in the past, and to those who are now supporting an enforced change. This is ridiculous and clearly disruptive. There's no good reason for anyone to have an entirely unlinked and undated signature. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would also like to see this as a precedent for giving at least that part of WP:SIG more teeth. There are other users with similarly disruptive ways of signing who are similarly immune to requests to change their signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not think that the refusal to use ~~~~ is a reason for a block. If someone finds the lack of a link to the talk page annoying, they do not have to communicate with such a user. If Docu wants other users to ignore him, it is a Docu's problem. However as an administrator Docu has so far done nothing wrong, and I do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to predict what Docu may do in the future. Ruslik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that other users may have good reasons to communicate with him, for instance if they ask an explanation about an administrator action he made, and they can't easily do so because of the lack of a link. The ArbCom has repeatedly held, most recently at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, that "administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed". Docu's lack of a signature inhibits such communication.  Sandstein  16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Add me to the list of those who did not ask him to use a proper signature because it was clear there would be no constructive response. I fully agree with TenOfAllTrades' analysis. To add something new to this discussion:
  • This response is inconsistent with the inconvenient key combination explanation.
  • I think we can really expect a user who is confronted with this question about once a month to at least put an explanation on their user page or talk page. Without being asked to do so, actually. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. I wouldn't be as bothered if this wasn't an admin, but admins must lead by example on Wikipedia. his avoidance and vague excuses for not doing it are not in the spirit of WP cooperation and project. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would want to wait and see Docu's side before anyone starts posting up any blocks. Livewireo (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is essential for average users to be able to easily contact any administrator, including Docu. His reluctance to use a timestamped and linked signature now that it is easy to do so (e.g. click on the icon) seems POINTy to me. If there is opposition to a block over this issue, perhaps an involuntary re-submission to RFA is more appropriate. Let the community decide whether Docu's significant contributions outweight his accessibility as an administrator. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, agree with the above, the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [25]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support viradae's proposal. I have also asked him multiple times about the signature, and he has been rude and evasive on the question. He seems to be getting involved in discussions on talk and project pages more, which is why people are noticing (the bulk of his activity is gnomish). The lack of a date stamp is what i find most annoying. The real problem is he's a legacy admin from a time when standards were much lower, though the solution to that problem would involve major changes to admin tenure which are unlikely at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only does it not link anywhere, but not using timestamps interferes with archiving. hmwithτ 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we seriously talking about blocking Docu here? This is a user who has been an admin for nearly six years, and we are talking about blocking because he doesn't sign his posts in the way we like? Now, I agree it's a pain, I agree Docu should sign his posts properly for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I can't, however, believe that it is seriously worth blocking a respected, long-time contributor over it. We have dispute resolution methods other than Special:BlockIP. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) from above. He actually has done things which are unbecoming of an admin, and some of them are directly related to his admin powers, while others are simply about a repeated pattern of rude behavior which makes it difficult to deal with him as an admin. The question we should be asking ourselves is would he pass an RFA today with all of the following problems:

1. The signature issue (noted ad infinitum here)
2. comments like this (thanks to hmwith for pointing this out above) which are part of a continued pattern of refusal to answer reasonable questions. He either dodges questions, ignores them all together, or as above, acts rude and unbecoming. There is an exchange on my talk page where I tried (in vain) to mediate a dispute between him and another editor. He blatantly refuses to acknowledge any comment or point which does not support his position, even when such points are shown to be valid. If I saw this pattern of interpersonal exchange in a person standing for an RFA, I would not support them.
3. He has been found, by consensus, to have misused his admin powers in an impartial manner, and where he had an interest, and where he had been told before the same thing. See WP:ANI#User:Docu and AFD closes against consensus where he was shown to have closed a series of AFD discussions in a suspicious and partial manner.

I have tried to work with this user, and have stretched the limits of my ability to assume good faith, but based on what I have observed recently with him, and with other evidence presented here and elsewhere, it does not appear that he has the support of the community insofar as being an admin is concerned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support above Totally agree with above assessment, at first I honestly thought Docu was a new user with his vague responses and refusal to say whether or not he is an admin (which I have asked why he doesn't show it on his user page - no direct response to this). there's this vague exchange as well [26] the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [27]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that I have no problem with admins who remain admins through changing standards so long as their behavior continues to be up to the expectations of an admin. As of now, his behavior is not up to the standards. If he had passed RFA 2 months ago, and had sudden started acting this way, I would still feel that his suitibility to continue to be an admin is questionable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, the key question here is his behaviour consistent with adminship. I believe Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct is not being met. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sig doesn't bother me. It's easy enough to get the time or talk page of the user by clicking the history tab so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. However, the obfuscational (is that a word?) conversation linked above definitely needs explanation. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason the signature bothers me is that I frequently access Wikipedia from my BlackBerry. The format of the page is slightly different when viewed on such a device, and having to scroll up to a search bar and type in his user name or scroll to the bottom of the page, click the history, find his user name, and click on the link is beyond what should be required to access somebody's talk page. A simple link solves this. --auburnpilot talk 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. But he doesn't sound particularly tech savvy so perhaps this should be explained to him. I'm really curious about the exchange above which doesn't look healthy at all - unless there are mitigating factors that we're unaware off. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing a good deal of his talk page history a few weeks ago I would have arrived at the opposite conclusion, that he is pretty savvy about these things. Drawn Some (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only "easy" to get the timestamp when it's the last edit in the history. For longer/complex pages or reviewing back in history, it can be very difficult to figure out which exact diff is the one you're looking for. Franamax (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like his signature but he's been using it for six years and I don't think he should be hassled over it. I told him that a couple of weeks ago: [28]. Should he sign "properly"? Yes. Should he be forced to or punished for not doing so? No. I am much more concerned about his refusal to answer questions about being an administrator because I had a similar situation to LibStar's just before that interaction. I understand that it is just another set of tools and that a case could be made for it being essentially irrelevant but I believe when asked directly it should be answered without hesitation. I would like to see all administrators be included in a category of administrators or have some other uniform identification that is apparent without checking status. His status was particularly difficult to check because the record-keeping wasn't the same back then. As far as the archiving of his talk page, he clearly marks when he is saving it in the edit summary and he made the point many years ago that it was already archived in the history and there is something to be said for that. Yes, the bar for being administrator is much higher now than it was six years ago but that is essentially irrelevant until there is some procedure where all admins have to go up for confirmation every year or two which is what I would support. The people who have been around for a while are very important for institutional memory. Six years is a long time in terms of Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That he's been using the same way of signing for 6 years doesn't suggest community tolerance or support, only that he's been ignoring multiple requests to change it. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a category, but Special:ListUsers/sysop works. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Or just add the following to your monobook: importScript("User:Animum/usergroups.js"); //[[User:Animum/usergroups.js]]

Yeah, I understand that there are ways of checking, but you can't expect new users to be able to figure stuff like those methods out. Put yourself in the shoes of your average user. Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins might not want to "present" as an admin because it might cause people to act differently towards them, when they should not. Admins are just editors with a few extra buttons. –xeno^talk 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that but when an ordinary user asks if they are an admin, as in my case in the context of what I thought was non admin closure, there was no response to my question instead a series of vague questions in response. Admins should identify themselves when necessary not pretend not to be one when asked. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that. And like he pointed out to me, you shouldn't trust someone telling you that they are an admin anyway. BTW, I tried the monobook thing but futzed it up. Anyone can feel free to fix it for me if possible. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an involuntary re-RFA (if that's possible). I have no trust in him as an admin, based on his interactions with me and other users and his recent actions at AFD and his general refusal to abide by community standards that multiple editors have complained about. Is there any editor here who would complain if he signed properly? No. Are there many editors that are vexed that he refuses to comply with a simple, courteous community standard? Yes. Is this indicative of an overall attitude that degrades confidence in his collegiality and judgement? Yes.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No such thing. –xeno^talk 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pity. There should be. I suppose the best course is a block until he promises to change his ways on the sig, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the sequence of events here [29] following a very clear outcome in this deletion review shows a genuine attempt to circumvent DRV processes. I am particulary concerned that an admin tried to do this and not respect DRV. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, administrators are expected to respond to comments, criticisms and other matters promptly and civilly, especially in regards to administrative actions and to justify where and when needed. Docu has refused to do that time and time again, simply "archiving" by wiping the slate clean on his talk page. That is unacceptable, and going on a vague, incorrect response five years ago about his handicapped keyboard is not enough. Given that Docu has come up time and time again on subjects that exceed the bound of his signature issues, especially in regards to his improper and biased AFD closures, he should either be subject to reconfirmation as administrator, or voluntary de-sysop himself lest he wants this process dragged out that could very well end at a RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion makes me want to bring up WP:EQUALITY (even though I don't fully agree with it). Just because he's been doing this for a long time and has been an editor forever does not mean that he can get away with acting and communicating the way he does. He is rude and condescending to other editors, and it looks bad for Wikipedia as a whole. As someone mentioned above, if this was a new admin, less people would be letting it slide. hmwithτ 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I would support a desysop of this user—xe has made constructive contributions as a user, but the lack of communication and civility cannot be tolerated in an administrator. I would be neutral about blocking the user, leaning toward a weak support. Dendodge _T\^C 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]