Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fish and karate (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 11 December 2007 (→‎Community ban discussion: indef). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Current issues

    User talk:Joejoebilly

    Resolved

    Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@11/27/2007 04:18

    User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

    Community ban of spammer

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'

    Executive summary: Webgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —Random832 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (UTC)

    Streamlining "Did You Know?"

    I’ve noticed lately that DYK updates are a little slow coming at times, and some of the DYK regulars are rather vocal about seeing it updated often. The process in place right now is a pretty lousy one. The process could be improved and updates always made on time by borrowing Raul’s process for Today's Featured Article. I bring this proposal here since administrators are the ones tasked with seeing this updated every six hours.

    Instead of constantly updating {{Did You Know}}, we should create individual pages for each set of hooks to be put on the mainpage, like so:

    and so on. The pages will update each day at the 0th, 6th, 12th, and 18th hour UTC. The actual update will happen without direct admin intervention automagically. We’ll replace the {{Did you know}} code on the main page with {{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} – ({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}. Of course, to keep the would-be Main Page vandals at bay, the titles for the pages would need to be protected in advance, either at Protected Titles or by IARbot. We'd also have to create a page with updating instructions.

    There are some immediate benefits to this approach:

    • It allows admins to work ahead on DYK. In one sitting, an admin could queue up the hooks for a couple day’s worth of DYKs. In the meantime, other admins can add new sets of hooks for later on.
    • Any editor who spots an improvement to the already created hook pages can post an {{editprotected}} request directly to that talkpage, often before it even goes to the mainpage.
    • It would be easy to make a warning template using the #ifexist parser function to say "Hey you! Admins! The next set of DKY hooks is not made yet. The next update is at 18:00 UTC. Chop chop!" We can make it big and red and threatening, and include it at the top of WP:AN and WP:ANI. No bots needed. The template would only show if the next page to be included had not been created yet.
    • I keep a lookout for typos and other errors on Today's Featured Article at User:HiDrNick/TFA blurbs. It would be easy to create a similar page for the upcoming DKYs, both so that admins see at a glance how far ahead the updating is done, and to keep as many eyes on the upcoming hooks as possible.

    Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That strikes me, for one, as a supremely fine idea. Joe 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this something that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like a good idea, anyway: For instance, a day or two ago, we were working on 6-day old tags still (which we're not supposed to do) - but the second update of the day came about 5 hours late. [I'd have fixed it myself, but I was at University]. Adam Cuerden talk 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note over there directing interested parties to here. I checked out Template talk:Did you know before posting here, and it looked like clearly the wrong place to post. I didn't realize that there was a WT:DYK. ➪HiDrNick! 09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like this idea. It effectively shuts out non-admins from most of the updating process. I've just started working in this area and I've found it's something I enjoy, if it's going to be left entirely up to admins, with me having to post an "editprotected" request every time I want to experiment with even a minor tweak, then there is no longer any incentive for me to participate.

    Also, in regards to the "big warning template" to post on AN/I, I'm certainly in favour of that, but then if we are going to have regular warnings on AN/I, I think the problem is largely solved in any case, because my guess is that there are generally plenty of non-admin interested parties hanging around who would be more than happy to post a "big warning template" whenever the update is 15 minutes overdue :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the idea of automating the process to ensure regularity of updating and easing the process of making Main Page changes. When DYK is delayed, it reduces the number of opportunities for new articles to make it to the main page, which is frustrating for those waiting to get on. (Also, as a new admin with a few DYKs under my belt, I'd be happy to lend a hand but at present am a little nervous about stuffing up!) However, I take Gatoclass's point about involving non-admins in selection. Why not, as now, allow non-admins to add suggestions to the update until it has been completed and is ready for the main page, and only then give it full protection? Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. BencherliteTalk 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that might be more useful is to have some way of automating the crediting. Distributing 10-30 templates throughout the project - talk pages, article pages, etc - and having to manually prepare the contents of each template is annoying. Surely it could be at least partially automated. Adam Cuerden talk 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea too. Crazy that something like that isn't automated IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [Edit conflict]: Excluding non-admins from selecting suggestions from the list of candidates and adding them to the update will in fact increase the load on admins rather than reduce it. - Bencherlite
    I think you are correct on the last point. I almost singlehandedly did two updates yesterday because no-one else seemed to be around, if I hadn't done so someone else - probably an admin - would have had to do the job instead.
    As to "why not allow non-admins to add suggestions until it has been completed, and then protect" - might I suggest that the page be protected automatically at a certain point in the process? Let's say, the page is protected one hour before it is due to be posted. If it's not finished at that stage, an individual or bot can post the "big red warning" at ANI.
    Having an auto-protect feature would not only obviate the need for manual protection, it would also let all users know exactly how long before the page was to be protected, so they could keep working to improve the update up to that point.
    If there's to be an auto-protect though, might I suggest that the auto-protect also generates an auto-warning on AN/I for some admin to go and validate that the page is actually in a fit state to be posted and that it hasn't been vandalized. In that case you could dispense with the "big red warning" altogether because there would be a reminder on AN/I to check the update every six hours anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to take the idea a little further, you could have some sort of admin validation process to stop the update posting if no-one had checked the contents. In other words, it goes like this: an hour before the update is due, the update is auto-protected and a message generated on AN/I for someone to go and check it's okay. The admin checking that it's okay then has some sort of admin-only button he can use to inform the software the update has been checked and is good to post. If no admin hits the button by the time the update is due, the software does not post the update but instead sends another message to AN/I saying it's still waiting for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • I know this might be a dumb idea, but is there a way to have certain users given Admin powers, but restricted to DYK duties only? That way, we won't have the lags in updating and whatnot because we can have a healthy pool of admins to update as needed. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be the knee-jerk opposition to change here, but non-admins do so much of the next update template that I'm not sure if this is a very good idea. Also, in my experience, the DYK regulars don't complain much about the next update being late. I think the regulars are used to it. Newcomers to the project often complain, but it's worth bearing in mind that "6 hours" and "5-days-old" are just arbitrary goals to keep the pressure on. Ninety percent of the time it's not a problem to have a 6-day-old hook and a template that's updated every 8 hours. Why would it be? The purpose is not rules for the sake of rules. The purpose is to get recognition and incentive for people who start good new articles instead of stubby ones. Unless the project is overlooking lots of good hooks (and this very rarely happens) then I don't think we should rejigger the mechanism. --JayHenry (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a good idea in principle to me, but it needs to be unprotected. What if we got rid of the automation, but did have the pages for each update? Whoever is updating simply looks at the page history and can evaluate the edits of anyone they didn't recognize to make sure they were constructive (and make sure it was updated at all--the possibility of that mistake seems as likely as intentional vandalism). As it is, the next update template is unprotected, and is often filled by non-admins (like Gatoclass) which greatly helps the admins (and gives them valuable experience too, if they're interested in an RFA). I do like the idea of being able to plan the updates in advance, though. That seems like it might go smoother. Rigadoun (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Technically, it is impossible. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This wouldn't have to exclude non-admins from the process at all; in fact, the idea is to take away a lot of the load already borne here by admins. All editors would still prepare sets of hooks to go on the mainpage, they would just post completed sets to a new (unprotected) holding page where they could be reviewed by other editors until an admin comes along, verifies that the content is appropriate for the mainpage and has not been vandalized, and posts them to the end of the existing queue. Since an admin could post a few sets of these at a time, DYK would be updated like clockwork with less admin work and little change in the actual selection process used now. Basically, instead of working on the set of hooks to be posted in a few hours, you might be working on a set of hooks that would be posted in 54 hours or so. ➪HiDrNick! 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's fine, but it doesn't address the problem of the updates being chronically late, which is the subject of this thread. I think I'd be satisfied at this stage with auto-alerts to AN/I every six hours. If the update turns out to be not ready, then the clock can be reset from the time when the next update is posted. Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. DYK, unlike the other sections of the main page, has a requirement that an article needs to be created recently. That doesn't really allow to effectively use a subpage model, as the pages can only be worked on for a few days before the deadline. Additionally, having more pages requires having more pages in one's watchlist, which then allows for errors and mistakes to be harder to find. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I and a few others are working on a few ideas to get the whole process streamlined and a bot or two involved to help with the checking of articles and such. WT:DYK is a much better place for this whole conversation. spryde | talk 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, how about something like this:
    Create a set of 28 pages, 4 for each day of the week like
    Template:Did you know/Monday/0
    Template:Did you know/Monday/6
    Template:Did you know/Monday/12
    Template:Did you know/Monday/18
    Replace the current {{Did you know}} on the main page with {{Did you know/{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)}}}}
    Which for Saturday at 21:41, returns Template:Did you know/Saturday/18. This means that the pages would only be protected when they are on the main page (through the cascading protection) and would otherwise be open to add new hooks.
    To prevent people from disrupting them immediately before they get on the main page, another cascade protected page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Next hooks could be created with {{Did you know/{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>18|{{#time:l|+ 1 day}}/0|{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}/{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}-({{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 6)+6}}}}}}. The #time: function is so that it will transclude the next day's "0" hour hook if it is after 18:00. For Saturday at 21:41, it returns Template:Did you know/Sunday/0.
    This set-up allows any user (or the templates can all be semi-protected) to make the updates and gives a six hour window before they are on the main page where they are full protected for admin review. It allows updates to be made well in advance, without creating 4 new templates every day, the old ones are simply overwritten. Except for the initial set-up and fixing any possible issues with the next update, this would not require admins at all and as the pages cycle, there is no reason to constantly create new pages and DYK people can have all 28 on their watchlist. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've created an example of what the system could look like in my userspace. See all the pages here. I created example pages for today and tomorrow (UTC), using the current hooks and the archive. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle I'm not against giving a system like this a try, but again I come back to the fact that this thread was started out of concerns regarding the chronic lateness of the updates, not the best way to organize their creation. I don't see how this proposal is going to have much impact on the former.
    In regards to the proposal itself, it seems unnecessarily complex to me. If you think an update queue is a good idea, what's wrong with just allowing the next two or three updates to be listed on the same page as the current next update page? It might be worthwhile at least trying that to see if queueing is of any benefit before we start thinking of more elaborate queueing schemes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from what I understand, the problem is that you need an admin to move the update from the update page to the protected template. With what I proposed, you really don't need an admin at all. Instead of the non-admins putting the update on a next update page and then going to ANI when no admin moves them, they put them on a page that will be transcluded onto the main page automatically at the correct time and you remove the extra step of moving them to the protected template. The only reason to go to ANI then would be if something needs to be corrected on the page that's currently on the main page or the next one. I really fail to see how automatically complaining to ANI is going to do anything more than annoy and fill up the page with DYK update requests. Mr.Z-man 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As with Gatoclass, in principle I'm not against giving this system a try. (We should note, of course, that it's quite the opposite of streamlining.) For one thing, I don't think "Having the update done well in advance" is a goal we necessarily want to pursue. We already get complaints, sometimes pretty savage and disheartening, every time a hook doesn't get properly screened. If we reduce the amount of time on the suggestions page, we reduce the amount of screening. Having some flexibility is good. For example, there's not a lot of people around from 4-12 UCT on a Saturday. Americans are going to sleep, the Brits are just waking up, the Australians are out partying and sometimes the template doesn't get updated. With this system of locking templates, if a non-admin doesn't do it, then you have a sort of race against the clock scenario to find an admin who's willing to update the template and walk him through it before a blank DYK page goes up. Will there be an easy way to tell what hours are ready and what aren't? Other than adding 28 pages to the watchlist? I guess I still have a lot of unresolved concerns about why we're making this change. (And actually, I don't understand why we're having the discussion here instead of with the people who actually update DYK). --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the current method requires an admin to do the update within a very short timeframe. The system I proposed only requires an admin if no one has prepared an update within 6 hours of it getting on the main page (and the timing for autoprotection of the next update could be adjusted as well if 6 hours is too long). Unless you get an adminbot to do the updates, there's no technical way to ensure that updates are done in a timely manner using only 1 template. The TFA, "On this day," and the POTD all use a date based template system. ITN doesn't because it is updated on an irregular basis. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second, do I understand correctly that people have been starting ANI threads when the update is 1 or 2 hours late? If so, we can add a notice on various places explaining that this is not necessary and should not be done. Rigid six-hour updating, in my opinion at least, is not one of DYK's purposes. The purpose is to encourage the creation of good new articles (instead of forgotten stubs) through a system of recognition and eyeballs to an interesting element of the new article. Right now we're not back-logged at all, and so if the weekend updates are a little slower it actually gives hooks a little more time to be reviewed at the suggestions page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I think there is some justification for creating multiple updates ahead of time. I could have done two or three myself in the last few hours, but I didn't because there is no place to put them. I guess I could have queued them on the "Next Update" page itself, but since I don't know the mechanics of updating, I'm not sure if that's practical.
    As for people complaining about DYK being only a couple of hours late, I agree that an hour or two isn't much of a problem but only today it was more than six hours late again. A few days ago IIRC it was more than ten hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Coped from Wikipedia talk:Did you know:

    I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.

    Here's how my ideal bot would work:

    An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done. Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world.

    In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Im going to write that bot, and Ive got some ideas that will make it even more user and non-admin friendly, along with being on time. :P Ill work on a method, and hash out the details on the DKY talk page and with DYK regulars. βcommand 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the current system is very good. The problem isn't filling the next update. The problem is moving that template to the main page. If you do too much ahead of time, this will take away time for hook improvment and rewriting and getting non-compliant articles to standard.

    If you really want a bot, then we need to extend the deadline by 1 day to 6 days. On the early part of day 6, admin could move the next update page to the bot transfer page. There would then be 2 updates for the bot to move. Admin would still have to add to the bot page every 6 hours but with 2 updates there, there would be more leeway. Even after 12 hours, the admin could catch up and move 2 updates to the empty bot page. Chergles (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this problem will be solved in a few years. WP is growing. As there are more admins, a few of them will do DYK work. Look at some of the articles from 2004. Some of them were short stubs but are FA now. Chergles (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rex Germanus

    I'm getting quite fed up with User:Rex Germanus. Since I'm definitely not neutral on this (involved gradually in different editing disputes with him), I am bringing this here for general consideration (since the CSN board is closed down), to see what (if anything) should be done.

    Since his return from a month long block on November 13, Rex has continued his disruptive behaviour, but is now supported by a number of IP adresses, including 145.93.125.93, 145.93.123.60, 145.93.126.83 and 145.93.124.84, all coming from Fontys Hogescholen. I have no idea if this is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it makes the situation even worse.

    Problems are: asking for references without ever providing some themselves (e.g. on Dutchland[1], West Flemish[2], or Van Beethoven family[3]). Instead of replacing German with Dutch, his new topic is replacing Flemish with Dutch, even when it is incorrect, as in Jean Bart[4]. He moved Dunkirkers to Dunkirk Raiders, and was unwilling to consider that he was wrong even when presented with references, and (again) without presenting any counterreferences himself, only his assertions (see User Talk:Rex Germanus#Dunkirkers). In these and other discussions, his (and the IP's) discussion and edit summaries where very often uncivil and personal, and very rarely constructive. Talk:West Flemish#Y vs. IJ is a good illustration of this.

    Finally, edits like this one[5] are to me unacceptable.

    This is a complicated situation in which I am a party, but I seriously doubt if Rex has changed a bit since his last block, and if he is beneficial to Wikipedia. I have not issued any formal warnings, since (coming from me) they would probably only inflame the situation, instead of helping. Fram (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since he's been warned off editing German topics, Rex certainly seems to have acquired a bee in his bonnet about all things Flemish. The disruption is at a much lower intensity than before, but it's still there. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them.
    'Disrupted Topic' according to Fram:
    Jean Bart: Being Dutch-born, ethnic sense, (Dunkirk being almost completely etnically Dutch at the time of his birth) doesn't say anything about nationality; the source of your confusion as noted in your edits.
    Dunkirkers: Explained at my talkpage, point of concern? 'Dunkirkers' also refers to people from Dunkirk in general. Simple as that.
    Van Beethoven Family: In the Beethoven question, which I've dropped as announced on the talk page) I proved my point that Flemish meant Dutch in beethovens time (and his ancestors times). Fran/Folentin demanded something more specific (what could cover my point more I ask myself). If that's 'not ever providing sources' then I don't know what that is.
    For example Another false accusation to add to my list. I do use sources, more than any of the people mentioned above. This report to me is just a clear example of how these people try to push their changes on wikipedia without referencing. A small step from unfounded opinions, to personal attacks and allegations and now ... and attempt to block or similar. Sad, if you think you're right, go to library and find out for sure.Rex (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I deny all accusations made by Erik Warmelink who accuses me of using sock/meatpuppets. I have never used them and never will. Just because an IP (I assume it is the same person) disagrees with you and supports me doesn't make it a sock, it just makes 2 vs 1.Rex (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, quote the starting 10 words of the entry on "beethof" on http://www.etymologie.nl/ (I get: Lemma niet gevonden! Dit deel van het Etymologisch Woordenboek van …, crude translation: Lemma not found! This part of the etymological glossary of …), give a reliable source that links "van Beethoven" with Beets or the Betuwe, give a source that "van Beethoven" was ever used as a familyname in the Netherlands, give a reliable source that "proves" that Flemish meant Dutch in Beethovens time. Just because several IPs agree with you, doesn't make them socks; if all they do is agreeing with you (even repeating your accusation that I would lie) and reverting to your versions (without interwiki's that were added and with spelling errors that were corrected), appearances are against you. Also explain this edit summary. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I invite everyone to look at the edits linked, and compare them with the actual statements by Rex Germanus. E.g. the Van Beethoven family edit I linked has nothing to do with the Flemish vs. Dutch dispute, and Rex Germanus ignores the other, more recent pages listed (e.g. Dutchland is a very nice example, and West Flemish, where Rex Germanus makes even this evening clearly invalid statements on the talk page[6]). Perhaps Rex uses sources, but he certainly doesn't provide them. Fram (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not confuse yourself with me. I do provide sources. Look at Dutch people, over 110 references, nearly all added by me, I know how to reference.Rex (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not provided sources for any of the disputes mentioned here: I'm glad that you know how to do it, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour in the last month. Why do you say here that "some people love fights" while going from a more to a less correct page?[7]. Why do you make such clearly invalid statements like this one?[8] Why did you change from one unsourced spelling to another unsourced one[9], but then accuse me of OR when I provide an independent but unreliable source (which of course is not OR at all), while not providing any source at all to support your version?[10] And why are you so uncivil in nearly all your edits and edit summaries (when you use them)? Fram (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's less correct Fram? Explain that to me. That note on West Flemish is really a cry for help for your behavior. Your 'arguments' were/are completely discredited on talk and still you revert to your version. Also you did not, hence no links, in the entire West Flemish discussion provide any reference. So don't make it seem you did.Rex (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief, are we still dealing with this guy? How many kilobytes of AN and ANI discussion have been devoted to his antics? When is enough provocation enough? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep your good griefs to yourself and focus on what's presented, not how many times a name comes up on a page you happen to watch.Rex (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd move for a ban to stop Rex wasting any more of our time. He's just a Dutch nationalist logic-chopper with a grudge against Germans and, now it seems, the Flemish. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You people can go on making more melodramatic comments here for as long as you want, in every case here I provided references, others did and an the contributions button will show anyone that Erik Warmelink started all this with his on purpose nonsense reverts. He even stated against an IP how much he hates me. Ridiculous. I'm off continuing referenced editing. Some of you ought to try that too sometimes.Rex (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting way to summarize I don't hate Rex Germanus and No, I don't hate Rex Germanus. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This really is nonsense. If someone askes references? or if he is a little bit nationalistic? Dit kinse toch neet meer geluive. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rex I have met you editing for over a year now, and most of it you have been engaged in one or more disputes. Although I have had my own disputes in that time, and made a comparable number of edits as you in that year, I have never been accused of any gross violation, no official complaint was ever listed against me. It cannot be only other editors bad-faith towards you that cause you being involved in so many formal procedures; it can only mean you are doing something wrong. Please consider this. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear cut example. The first adress of Erik Warmelink on talk was not a plea for his own version and why it was better, but a direct personal attack. A rant about how many blocks I've had. How do you see any good faith in that?Rex (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From my POV, it started with this edit. My edit was after my additions[11][12] to Talk:Van Beethoven family#Meertens reference, which Rex Germanus ignored. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban discussion

    Last time we discussed Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on October 13, I blocked him for one month and suggested that further disruption should result in an indefinite block. Rex Germanus' long block log is strong evidence that he has worn out the community's patience. Before placing an indefinite block, I would like to run a checkuser to see if there is any sockpuppetry involved, and I'd also like to see a concise list of diffs showing disruption since the most recent block. - Jehochman Talk 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rex Germanus, and here is a set of diffs that demonstrate edit warring if these IP's are in fact Rex Germanus: [13] [14] [15] [16] -- [17] [18] [19] [20] If not, there may be other evidence sufficient to justify a community ban. - Jehochman Talk 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wie een hond wil slaan, vindt licht een stok. Go find your stick Jehochman. Surprise me.Rex (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know anything about the IP editor(s) who have been supporting you in these content disputes? - Jehochman Talk 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly they/he/she must be insane, rude and nationalistic assholes. Why else would the IP(s) support me? I can't even comprehend that myself, I can only imagine how you felt in all your biased glory when you saw them! Poor you. Rex (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) The checkuser result is "Possible". Given the identical point of view of the IP's and Rex Germanus, and the lack of technical evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to accept the assertions made by Fram (talk · contribs). Rex Germanus has apparently returned to his previous editing style which has resulted in approximately 15 different blocks, placed by diverse members of the Wikipedia admin corps. I think Rex Germanus has expended the community's patience and the time has come to ask him, politely but firmly, to leave the project. (add) Rude comments won't help your cause, Rex Germanus. - Jehochman Talk 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. And if that IP is Rex, we have at the very least a breach of the revert parole, as he repeated the same revert under his account the next day ([24], [25]). However, that IP is not from the same range as the others, from a university in Tilburg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) Editing at home, school/work, and a cafe will result in different IPs. I think we should mainly consider the styles of editing, and the tone of Rex Germanus' comments on this very thread. - Jehochman Talk 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (Keep thread open. 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    To be fair the editor was simply importing material from the Dutch version of the same page - summarizing this as "interwiki" might not have been entirely bad faith. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, Rex was deleting material, and then as shown above, he subsequently repeated the edit with his own account the next day. This is evidence of gaming his revert parole. - Jehochman Talk 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit didn't import, it reverted to a previous version by Rex Germanus[26] and re-added cy:Ffleminiaid which was added[27] by User:AlleborgoBot (AlleborgoBot did add in alfabetical order, though). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been asked to comment here. I haven't had time to look into this in detail, but there does appear to be a case here for an indefinite block. Before supporting that, I'd like to ask if there is any case for a repeated one month block, or a longer block (with people watching out for block evasion) or a topic ban? The evidence above that Rex has been evading his revert parole should also be followed up. I'd also urge Rex (and others) to speak up if any of these blocks were inappropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the repeated incidents of revert warring and POV pushing, compounded by the use of IP accounts to evade scrutiny, proven in one case, and very likely in at least three other cases, plus incivility by Rex Germanus right here in this thread, I suggest a 1 year ban. We've had 15 prior blocks, but Rex Germanus hasn't gotten the message yet. It's time to protect our editors. - Jehochman Talk 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Jehochman. You can stop stalling the block/bann process in order to make it seem fair to outsiders, I've beaten you to it. Have a nice life, or whatever you call it.Rex (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for blocking indefinitely here. Rex is a long-term problem editor, who has had multiple last chances, has sockpuppeted to avoid his parole, and has a net negative effect on Wikipedia in general. Neıl ☎ 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A salted user talk page?

    User:BobTheTomato's user page and talk page are both currently salted through User:East718/NaCl. However, East718 appears to have left the project, while BobTheTomato is active. This doesn't seem quite kosher; can someone do something about it? Merging East718's personal salted-pages list into the main list at Wikipedia:Protected titles seems like the rational approach, but (1) I'm not an admin, so I can't do it myself, and (2) I figure this is an unusual enough situation as to merit bringing it up here. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless someone can testify that these were necessary deletions of talk pages, I'm thinking of undeleting them. See the thread two above for the reasons. No reason has been given for deleting these talk pages at all. Now, if there's a pressing privacy reason - fine. I don't even have to know it. But can someone tell me that there is one.--Docg 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BobTheTomato edits actively under a new account name, they're using this one only to participate in the ArbCom elections. The old account name was easily connectable to their real-world identity and location, and he/she had a stalker that was using information gleaned from Wikipedia against them. Please contact Dmcdevit or Secretlondon for more information. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely fine. But, if talk pages are deleted in such extraordinary circumstances can we please not use "rtv" as the deletion reason. As is shown above rtv, does NOT justify deletion of usertalk pages on request. Usertalk should only be deleted in exceptional circumstances - and I encourage admins deleting under such circumstances to use a deletion summary like "special circumstances - e-mail me if you need details". That way we don't give the impression of deletion on demand, but neither do we end up with someone sending the deletion to DRV in cases that there are exceptionally good reasons for deletion.--Docg 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BobTheTomato had a former name under which he wa sbeing harassed, and changed names then registered a new account. Why do we need these back? Guy (Help!) 19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I follow now. To clarify, my issue was primarily with the pages being protected against recreation - but, so long as they're just using the account for this election, I don't see so much of an issue with that.

    However, my second point stands - given that East718 is no longer active, someone should probably take responsibility for the pages they've salted. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not dead, I'm just in hibernation. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

    This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Wikipedia may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole.


    Articles
    That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. Tedickey (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets)


    Discussions


    Domains added to Wikipedia
    • Hundreds? Nobody knows exactly how many and Virtualology apparently own over 7500 domain names. See the 3 WikiProject Spam discussions for some that have been identified so far.


    Also see

    --A. B. (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • SPAM - They are added indiscriminately, often to Reference sections where they are not a source, or just to the wrong person, like Francis Barber today, who (slightly comically) had [http://famousamericans.net/francisbarber/ this link] added today, at the top of the list, natch. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In plain English

    Tell me if I understand this right: some people have tried to revise a notoriously inaccurate reference source that's over 100 years old (the original contained over 200 fictitious biographies). The main individual involved in this effort has no academic or publishing credentials. Then this group of people have created countless domains to host parts of the "reference work" and cited Wikipedia articles that way, simultaneously sending hundreds of outgoing links to their domans and Wikilinks to the Wikipedia biography of one of this revised edition's principal editors? If that's an accurate summary, then the whole things fails WP:RS and is a massive case of spam. WMF ought to be notified, given the size of this problem. DurovaCharge! 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, though rather than "tried to revise" I suspect "made sufficient changes to justify (they hope) slapping a copyright notice on" is more like it. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If A. B. posted this here to get general consent for a campaign against the entire set of external and internal links, I would support that. This could potentially lead to a combined AfD against all the Klos articles, and could be contentious, but well-justified by policy. Is there any wider review that should be done before such a step is taken? Does anyone see anything of value in the Klos-related material that ought to be preserved? EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, I posted it here not so much to get consent as to engender discussion this stuff's value. Since these links show up in references, I don't want to go off on a tear deleting citations and links the community finds useful, even if I don't like the way this stuff got added. --A. B. (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this could qualify under the standards Wikipedia normally applies. If the original source had been revised by an established publisher, using actual experts, then that might be a different matter. What we have here is self-published material and a staggering self-promotional campaign. The integrity of scores of important biographies may have been compromised. I want to be certain I understand this right before reaching a final conclusion, but if this really is a correct understanding then I'd not only endorse a combined AFD, I'd support a siteban and spam blacklisting along with a long term vandalism report. This behavior is a direct assault on Wikipedia's credibility: make absolutely certain you're on the mark first, then if everything checks out slash and burn. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Modifying that: perhaps these people will be receptive to official contact from WMF and take it down themselves. DurovaCharge! 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) (updated info here) The fact that these users edit to a point just short of being blocked & then reincarnate as a new user is a bit troubling. --Versageek 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that CheckUser has confirmed these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets:
    Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To help in investigating the many domains, I've set up a temporary user subpage listing the domains we know of. I'll be using the {{spamlink}} template links to try to figure out what other domains this person owns and may have spammed. --A. B. (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Virtuality as an honest attempt to do a good project, but based upon an extremely naive understanding of history and scholarship. I think he really does want to revise it--but he unfortunately picked something that should instead be replaced, as being fundamentally too weak for improvement. It hasn't helped that he has an idiosyncratic view of the relationship of the government under the Articles of Confederation with that under the Constitution, but I think has wider goals, which are not dishonourable. Just that he hasnt achieved them, and is not likely to--and the present state of the project is in fact dangerous. The proper use of Appleton's for WP is only as a suggestion of names upon which people might write proper WP articles. The best immediate thing is to remove the internal links as misleading and the external ones as unreliable. The sockpuppetry is simply someone continuing on a hobbyhorse, and willing to disregard our rules to do so--and of course must be blocked, to prevent further damage. DGG (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere. Most of them can be expanded greatly if proper sources are used--appleton is not only incorrect but incomplete. If the appleton-based edits are recent, then it will be enough to revert them. This probably needs to be a formal or informal project. 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else.
    Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser):
    Can some admin block it? Thanks.
    Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki:
    Articles:
    --A. B. (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes! 1173 famousamericans.net links on this Wikipedia plus 200 to 250 more on other projects:

    Here's another IP that was heavily used:

    We've identified another about another 275 related domains, most of them for individual historical figures (abraham-lincoln.org, aaronburr.net, etc.). Based on a small sample, I'd say there are another 200 to 500 links to the domains on that list. --A. B. (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions:
    --A. B. (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to mention there's banner ads and adsense too (pub-6719872942509405). It's spam. Can we start removing the links now? MER-C 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good heavens banner ad/adsense issues too? By all means start deleting. That's my call anyway. Thank you so much for your diligence. DurovaCharge! 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, Durova, I'm not sure banner ads and Google Adsense make a site inappropriate. You'll get ads on Globe and Mail and New York Times pages and you'll find Adsense ads at the bottom of Daily Telegraph articles. Legitimate content providers have to pay bills, too. --A. B. (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't make a site inappropriate in itself, I agree. If the site is already inappropriate as a reference, and if the same people are spamming it onto Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source, then what that amounts to is an attempt to skim profit off Wikipedia's massive traffic. That's a bit more predatory than ordinary spam, which (we hope) at least offers solid informational value and doesn't earn a direct profit from click-throughs. Bear in mind that New York Times citations aren't spam: it's a newspaper of record that thousands of people add to this site's pages as a reference. The danger of going to soft on pseudoreferencing is that we'd get overrun with junk. This isn't a small campaign of a dozen links; it's well developed and perpetuated through sockpuppetry. Yes, I do take a dim view. DurovaCharge! 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The method followed here, which resulted in the deletion of in-line citations added in good faith to articles (including featured articles) and even user sandboxes, was unfortunate. Further discussion of the point is at Talk:History_of_Minnesota#Removal_of_famousamericans.net_link and the section immediately preceding it. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that because of this discussion I have added famousamericans.net to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If anyone feels this is inappropriate, please file a proposed removal at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If an administrator deems, with good reason, that the addition of famousamericans.net to the spam blacklist was inappropriate, I have no problem with its removal without consulting me. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Next steps

    Here's what I think needs to happen:

    1. We should give this another day to let other chime in on the value of these links; from the WikiProject U.S. Presidents discussion at least one regular editor has expressed support for these links in the past.
    2. An admin should block the accounts I've listed above. Even if some of these links turn out to be useful, they've been added by sock/meatpuppets uncontrollably and in spite of requests to stop
    3. If there remains a strong consensus that all this stuff is junk, then I propose we start removing links here and on other Wikimedia projects.
    4. Once the links are removed, I propose we blacklist these domains at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Again, that assumes consensus here.
    5. Articles:
      1. Evisum -- not notable; take to AfD
      2. Virtualology -- probably not notable;[28][29] take to AfD for community discussion
      3. Stanley L. Klos -- notable.[30][31][32] Article needs rewrite, however.

    I estimate this cleanup may take 10 to 20 editor-hours.

    Others thoughts? --A. B. (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd agree with that, but it doesn't cover DGG's point above: "the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere..." bearing in mind that many of these links seem to have been added as "references" (when there was no external links section) when they were not actually used to source the article. That could take a long time to cover. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't expect to delete any historical articles. There are 100s of spam edits involved but none that I've sampled seem to be essential to any history articles' survival. I'm very much a historical inclusionist anyway; failure of an 18th century political figure to have his own web site doesn't mean there aren't a lot of references in the library. --A. B. (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ran into User:Damslerset inserting links to a Klos book and website that assert that George Washington is really the 10th or 11th president of the United States. Damslerset was adding the link to every article on anything named for John Hancock (one of the earlier Presidents) s/he could find, so you might want to do a Google search for "Stanley L. Klos" just within Wikipedia to look for other links we've missed so far. I think I reverted all of Damsleret's edits at the time, but will double check tonight. I support blacklisting this site. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS Just ran "Stanley L Klos" site:en.wikipedia.org on Google and found about 430 hits, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    /me dusts off some old tools:
    Total count: 1371 en: 1112 de: 125 ja: 29 fr: 32 pl: 7 it: 8 es: 32 pt: 17 zh: 3 fi: 2 no: 3 he: 1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/CrossWiki
    those are current numbers of links to famousamericans.net. Im removing those on en now. βcommand 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be worth taking this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? They could set it up as a cleanup drive to review articles that cite Appleton's and/or Virtualology. Clearly a personal site containing personal edits to material sourced from an unreliable encyclopedia is not a RS, so there are good grounds for going through them systematically and checking them off - rather than simply deleting the links, which would leave articles with no indication of potential unreliability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea, Gordon.
    In the meantime, I've started on cleaning up the 275 or so other domains besides famousamericans.net listed at User:A. B./Sandbox6. So far, most of the citations I've removed have been to Stanley L. Klos' self-published book and hyping his somewhat original researchish view that America had a number of other Presidents besides those that Started with George Washington. Technically this is true, but these Presidents of things like the Continental Congress were essentially chairmen, not major executive figures. I've felt little guilt in deleting them and the statements they've "supported". The more I look at this stuff, the less impressed I am. --A. B. (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rolled back the ones I could (about -150 links). Let me know when the spam count on de and en have dropped to ~100 or so so I can run a spamsearch to check other projects and small wikis. MER-C 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    es:Special:Contributions/97.97.197.9 is causing some damage again at es, by continuing the spam and recreating the article in the talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to block any users or worry about deleting the links. Virtualology existed before Wikipedia and will continue with you blocking your users from referencing the site's online content. Just make sure you get all of them out and be sure to post a notice somewhere that you are banning the citation of all the Virtualology sites, a page on Virtualology, a page on Evisum and a page on Stanley L. Klos the founder.

    We tried to clean-up the mess fairly and honestly with proper citations to our sites adding to your body of knowledge and by the way all these "death star links" links have netted the company a whopping $200 a month in Ad revenue and no Books sold as they sold out a year ago. We tried to follow an administrator's guidlines asking for help through several volunteer editors.

    Additionally, Mr. Klos has reviewed this page, and although in complete disagreement with your historical assessment that 10 Presidents of the United States did NOT serve before George Washington he throws in the towel. He does suggest the next time you visit the the National Archives be sure to take notice of the Treaty of Paris that ended the War with Great Britain signed, Thomas Mifflin, President of the United States in 1784 which starts off their exhibit ( here is a direct link - http://images.virtualology.com/images/5068.jpg)or just go to the Journals of the Continental Congress online and search President of the United States and write off those hundreds of historical treaties, documents, letters and Proclamations signed President of the United States too! After all, freedom of speech was guarenteed under the Constitution of 1787 not the Constitution of 1777 (which created the Perpetual Union and these ten Presidents) in the "Bill of Rights" It is most appropriate you silence what the Lady from NJ calls, unimpressive work, which by the way is about to launch a new Presidential Musuem in Norwich Ct. honoring thezs forgotten Presidents from Wikipedia.

    By the way A.B., did you know your State is the home of one of these President's of the United States who was held hostage along with the entire government of the United States in 1783 by its own military. The president called out the Pennsylvania Militia to free them but they refused to show. Another future President negotiated their release from Independence Hall and they fled to Nassau Hall in Princeton NJ never to return again. All the letters and documents reguarding this incident, including the order staying the execution of the mutineers, were signed President of the United State -- see EliasBoudinot.com But there were no Presidents of the United States before George Washington and Lincoln never used the Constitution of 1777 as the crux of his case on July 4, 1861 to wage war as the southern States broke the Perpetual Union ratified under the Articles of Confederation.

    As for you burning the links, Mr. Klos has asked the volunteers to stop cleaning up the references to the sites (as explained on my user page)or adding any more improvements to wiki sites despite our protests and honest attempt to work with your team to insure both sides of the question be explored and biographies properly cited, Heil Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

    My "state", eh??
    --A. B. (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Klos wants to know if Wikipedia would like a complete list of all the domains in the virtualology Project so you may completely blacklist all the company sites from your encyclopedia? One in particular
    whose content is copied but that is not cited is the online Edited Version of Peter Force's American Archives. Please advise as he seeks only too cooperate with this remarkable educational endeavor even if it means being "black listed" for your hundreds of users citing his content over the last several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.
    As one Florida Company and Resident to another Florida Company and resident Mr. Klos asked me to provide you with this first installment which is primarily historical.
    andywarhol.org, aaronburr.net, abigailadams.net, abraham-lincoln.org, abrahamclark.com, airforce1.org, alexander-hamilton.org, alexandergrahambell.org, alexanderhamilton.org, alphonsecapone.com, americanarchives.net, andrewcarnegie.net, andrewjackson.net, andrewjackson.org, andrewjohnson.org, andrewmellon.org, anthonywayne.org, arthurmiddleton.com, arthurstclair.com, arthurstclair.org, articlesofconfederation.com, articlesofconfederation.org, babe-ruth.info, battleofantietam.org, battleofprinceton.com, battleofyorktown.com, benedictarnold.org, benjaminfranklin.org, benjaminharrison.org, benjaminrush.com, betsyross.org, bookertwashington.org, buttongwinnett.com, cabinetroom.com, caesarrodney.net, calvincoolidge.org, carterbraxton.net, catherinethegreat.org, charlescarroll.net, charleslindbergh.org, charlesthomson.com, chesterarthur.com, civilrightsmovement.com, clarabarton.org, clementcmoore.com, constitutionalconvention.net, csaconstitution.com, cyrusgriffin.com, danielboone.org, danielwebster.org, declarationofindependence.info, demosthenes.com, dolleymadison.org, dwighteisenhower.org, edmundrandolph.org, edwardrutledge.com, egyptianmummy.com, eisenhowerdollar.com, elbridgegerry.com, eleanorroosevelt.org, eliasboudinot.com, elizabethcadystanton.info, elizabethi.com, elizabethmonroe.org, emancipationproclamation.org, equalrightsamendment.net, ernesthemingway.org, fallofsaigon.com, famousamericans.net, federalistpapers.org, federaltaxreturn.com, ferdinandmagellan.com, fortduquesne.com, forthenry.net, fortnecessity.org, fortpitt.org, francislewis.com, francislightfootlee.com, francisscottkey.org, franklindroosevelt.org, franklinpierce.org, franklinroosevelt.org, frederick-douglass.info, frederickremington.com, frenchandindianwar.net, gaiusjuliuscaesar.com, galleryoffame.com, george-washington.org, georgeacuster.com, georgearmstrongcuster.com, georgeclymer.com, georgemarshall.org, georgemason.net, georgepatton.net, georgeread.org, georgeross.net, georgetaylor.net, georgewalton.com, georgewashingtoncarver.org, georgewythe.net, geraldrford.org, gettysburgaddress.org, gottliebdaimler.com, grovercleveland.org, harrietbeecherstowe.info, harrytruman.org, haymsalomon.org, henryclay.net, henryclayfrick.org, henryhudson.org, henrylaurens.com, henrymiddleton.com, herberthoover.org, himalayamountains.com, honuswagner.info, honuswagner.org, isocrates.com, jamesagarfield.com, jamesbuchanan.org, jamesecarter.net, jamesfenimorecooper.com, jamesgarfield.org, jameskpolk.org, jamesmadison.info, jamesmonroe.net, jameswilson.org, jeffersondavis.net, john-adams.org, john-marshall.org, johnadams.info, johnaudubon.com, johndrockefeller.org, johnfkennedy.org, johnhancock.org, johnhanson.net, johnhart.net, johnjay.net, johnmorton.net, johnpauljones.net, johnpenn.com, johnqadams.org, johnquincyadams.info, johntyler.org, johnwitherspoon.com, josephhewes.com, josephpulitzer.com, josephstalin.org, josephwarren.com, josiahbartlett.com, juliawardhowe.com, jumonvilleglen.com, karlbenz.com, kinggeorgeiii.com, lewismorris.com, louisiana-purchase.org, ludwigvanbeethoven.org, lyndonjohnson.org, manhattenproject.com, marquisdelafayette.net, marthawashington.org, martinlutherkingjr.info, martinvanburen.org, mayflowercompact.org, meriwetherlewis.org, millardfillmore.org, millennium911.com, monroedoctrine.net, museumofnaturalhistory.org, napoleonbonaparte.net, napoleonbonaparte.org, nathanielgorham.com, northwestordinance.org, notaxationwithoutrepresentation.com, oliverwolcott.com, peterstuyvesant.org, peytonrandolph.com, philiplivingston.com, pierrerenoir.com, plymouthrock.org, popepiusx.com, presidentiallibrary.org, rebelswithavision.com, richardhenrylee.org, richardnixon.org, richardstockton.net, robert-morris.com, robertelee.net, robertelee.org, robertfkennedy.org, robertfulton.org, robertlivingston.net, roberttreatpaine.com, rogersherman.net, rooseveltdime.com, rutherfordbhayes.org, rutherfordhayes.com, samueladams.net, samueladams.org, samuelclemens.org, samueldechamplain.com, samuelhuntington.org, sirwinstonchurchill.org, sittingbull.org, sojournertruth.com, stegosauria.com, stephenhopkins.com, stjoanofarc.info, susanbanthony.net, teddyroosevelt.net, thedeclarationofindependence.org, thelibertybell.org, theodoreroosevelt.net, thomas-jefferson.org, thomasaedison.org, thomasalvaedison.org, thomasheywardjr.com, thomaslynchjr.com, thomasmckean.com, thomasmifflin.com, thomaspaine.info, thomasstone.com, treatyofparis.com, treatyofparis.org, treatyofversailles.com, tyrannosaurusrex.org, ulyssessgrant.net, ulyssessgrant.org, undergroundraiload.com, unitednationscharter.com, unitedstatesconstitution.info, usbillofrights.com, usconstitution.info, uspresidency.com, vietnamwar.org, virginiaarchives.org, virginiadeclarationofrights.com, virginiadeclarationofrights.org, vladimirlenin.com, walteredisney.com, warmuseum.net, warof1812.net, warrengharding.org, williamclark.org, williamellery.com, williamfloyd.net, williamhenryharrison.org, williamhooper.org, williamhowardtaft.org, williamhtaft.org, williammckinley.net, williammckinley.org, williampaca.com, williampenn.org, williamtaft.org, williamwhipple.com, williamwilliams.com, wolfgangmozart.com, womansuffrage.com, woodrowwilson.net, worldwari.org, worldwarii.org, zacharytaylor.org, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.
    Here are my posts as discussed above
    1. There are hundreds upon hundreds of citing of FamousAmericans.net and its subsidaries incorrectly over the years on Wikipeida by various authors. These need to be corrected to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 here are just a few examples at famousamericans.net:
    William Tilghman
    Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007
    Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I)
    • http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007
    Thomas Dale
    • http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007
    James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier
    • http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007
    Charles Manly
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007
    Civil War token
    ... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w...
    Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007
    George Baylor
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007
    Maria Zakrzewska
    Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007
    Edmund Zalinski
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (418 words) - 20:40, 23 November 2007
    Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, II)
    Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (300 words) - 23:01, 24 November 2007
    Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, I)
    Relevance: 77.5% - 1 KB (201 words) - 23:02, 24 November 2007
    John Morin Scott
    Relevance: 77.5% - 4 KB (611 words) - 17:40, 25 November 2007
    Roger Morris (British Army officer)
    ..., 1760 ending French rule in North America.http://famousamericans.net/rogermorris/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (388 words) - 10:42, 26 November 2007
    Thomas Penn
    Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1030 words) - 11:23, 26 November 2007
    James Hall (paleontologist)
    |url=http://www.famousamericans.net/jameshall1/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1006 words) - 15:31, 26 November 2007
    John Curtiss Underwood
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (419 words) - 01:40, 27 November 2007
    Mary Clark Thompson
    • http://www.famousamericans.net/myronholleyclark/
    Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (463 words) - 21:28, 27 November 2007
    John Trumbull
    Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1302 words) - 21:17, 27 November 2007
    Noël Brûlart de Sillery
    • Article, FamousAmericans.net
    Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (352 words) - 10:07, 28 November 2007
    Westerlo, New York
    ...is named after Rev. Eilardus Westerlo (http://www.famousamericans.net/eilarduswesterlo/).
    Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (772 words) - 05:55, 30 November 2007
    OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
    or like this
    http:// virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Stow
    These references need to be be cited properly
    2. There is use of sentences and paragraphs directly from Famous Americans.net and other Virtualology sites that are NOT cited with a "reference note" nor are there any references whatsoever to Appleton's or Virtualology so here we add it as a reference as a direct numerical citation unless the Article has no "footnoted" citations and only general references. Then I just add it to the list on references.
    3. In terms how the reference is listed, if there is a "footnote" it shows in the order as it appears. If there is no "footnote: then it is listed alphabetically.
    4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future.
    Now I realize you and the other Wikipedians are doing a fabulous job on monitoring this thr project. Please advise how we may mutually correct this to everyone's satisfaction as it needs to be corrected. Thank you


    From User talk:Pputter:
    "Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:"
    • "[http://famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ virtuology]"
    • "- wikipedia"
    "Tedickey (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 :::::(UTC)"[33]
    It was an error at http://www.famousamericans.net/johnbanister/ which was the father in the first paragraph and the son in the 2nd who is the suject of the Wiki page. Agreed the Article should have been improved and properly linked -- Like I said we will double check in the future. The reference however added to the reads information not only on the subject but his father of the same name.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

    Oh Yes as far as academic references you slighted above, well Mr. Klos' are meager but here they are:

    BA - American Studies, MA – Communications and Ph.D. in Communications & Marketing at St. Peter's College, Idaho State University and The Pennsylvania State University respectively . MBA Adjunct Professor and Lecturer - MBA BUSINESS AND THE MEDIA, MBA EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP AND MBA ENTERPRENEURSHIP - Wheeling Jesuit University, WV; MARKETING & FINANCE, Georgian Court College, New Jersey; COMMUNICATIONS, The Pennsylvania State University; BUSINESS AND PROFESIONAL SPEAKING, Idaho State University. Director of Communications NASA's Classroom of the Future 1999 to 2004, West Virginia Independent College Board of Directors; Wheeling Jesuit University MBA Board of Directors & James Monroe Foundation National Advisory Board.

    For the record I think what you are doing to this internet education pioneer is unjust. You should be helping him get the proper credit for the citing of his 8 years of internet education work and not blacklisting him. Mr. Klos, however, prefers peace over contention and asked me to handle this due to a personal challenges that have reset the bar on child custody law in Pennsylvania.

    I am sorry Deb, myself and Donna didn't correct the links properly. We are merely volunteers, not paid who were just trying to clean-up the Virtuaology citings and give Mr. Klos proper credit for his work. We apologize for creating a death star (still not sure what that is) and will aide you in anyway to correct it. We do not have any way to help you with the hundreds of people who cited his work over the years, sorry. All he asks that if it is used on your site to please cite it properly or remove it.

    Let me know if you want the other domains names. Keep up the good work, we use your site all the time especially with the kids homework. Pat PS - In May someone in your group told Donna to follow the find a grave system in citing and that is how all this started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pputter (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --Pputter (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

    My concern is that this action wasn't put in front of MilHist or Bio projects for lengthy discussion. We could have created an efficient process. I have no doubt that removing spam is essential. I have no dispute with requiring a link directly to Appletons as opposed to the FamousAmericans.net site. Perhaps a few bad editors were making these links a career. But I was using FA.net as reference long before I was using en.wikipedia.org. I have some loyalties to what Mr. Klos (with whose name I was unfamiliar until this morning) has been doing for years. I just wish this self-described "death star" behavior had been preceded by a posted notice of intent and this discussion allowing the page editors to create their own solution affirmatively. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BusterD, I tried to spread as wide a net as I could, then centralize this discussion in one place. I left notices about this discussion on these pages:
    I also left notes on the talk pages of the editors who had been most involved in discussion of these links.
    While the famousamericans.net domain was blacklisted a day or so earlier than I would have preferred, I believe the very meat or sockpuppets who have complained so bitterly here somewhat forced our hand by increasing the pace of their link additions over time, notwithstanding requests otherwise. 1500 links across multiple projects and growing -- that's out of control.
    Also, as noted here and on other noticeboards, there are reliability problems with this material. Certainly the links I removed were low quality and sometimes supported totally irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements to articles added by the spammers.
    I don't know what else to tell you. Ultimately, this is all about preserving the reliability and integrity of our encyclopedia in a collision between its goals and the desires of Mr. Klos' business. --A. B. (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just left a belated note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#famousamericans.net and related links.
    --A. B. (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was our fault as voluntary editors to Virtualology since 2001 we saw the hundreds of links all throughout Wikipedia of famousamericans.net and they were listed incorrectly as references and external links. We started trying to seek them out but Donna got the idea to just go through the Appleton's content starting with the A's and add as external links where missing, change were they existed and add missing Famous Americans creating “stubs?” why Deb concentrated on the content taken from Mr. Klos’ book which sold out a while ago and he just decided to put it online - http://stanklos.com/chapter1/.

    We got some conflicting advice early on from wiki monitors. First we were told no external links but use it as references. Then we were told we had to cite the actual reference sentence. Then we were told to add content and cite. Then we were told to not add original content but rewrite. Since the task was so daunting - 25,000 edited biographies we had other people help and the above was all mixed up as it came to different voluntary editors from different edits. You have to have this discussion somewhere, no? We do not have the coordination system you have.

    Mr. Klos just wanted to make his sources available to Wiki users and we wanted them cited properly.

    We are sorry for not following the protocol although we did list the revised Appleton's (many fictitious biographies were eliminated and others expanded by the way) as we get at least one or two emails like these below a day:

    On John Penns Birth Date You Said he was born on Mary 17, 1741 is it supposed to be May?

    Or

    James G. Blaine was a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts.

    For years, as there are errors in this historic text and we research it and make corrections and admit we have a backlog of about 100 .


    We did do, however, a source on the page directed to us by one of your administrators.

    Finally, it is important to note that the bulk of the citations (which were all over the board due to urls that are so dynamic ie -- benjaminfranklin.org/susanbanthony.net/vietnamwar.org or alexanderhamilton.org/johfkennedy.org/vietnamwar.org all got to vietnamwar.org and the combinations are limitless so wiki users references were all over the board with our references.

    It was an honest attempt to share information of the 25,000 biographies to Start, do proper references to what was already in your system for years and get some recognition for the Forgotten US Presidents which is Mr. Klos’ passion. We are sincerely sorry we made such a mess of this and caused all these very busy people so much trouble. Once again will cooperate in any cleanup efforts but ask that future use of the sites as references by your many wiki users be done properly. --Pputter (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pputter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

    I see that URL-based links to Appleton's Cyclopedia are now blocked and are being mass-deleted. I became aware of this because Return J. Meigs, Sr. is on my watchlist. Appleton's Cyclopedia was a principal source for that article, cited in March 2006 by User:LeRoi, and removal of the reference to it left an error message in that article (and a void in the sourcing for the article). I've restored the citation, but without the URL. However, this is hardly the only article where this was used as a source. Is it reasonable to bar all good-faith references to Appleton's Cyclopedia because of the spam issue? --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes -- it's always a bit daunting to frustrate probably our best editor in an editing dispute (not that she isn't always very gracious and easy to work with).
    Orlady, you can request whitelisting of specific links (not the whole domain) at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Good faith requests from established editors such as yourself are routinely approved. --22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the whitelisting suggestion. (I'll try to ignore the "probably our best" comment...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another problem though; Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography is known to include not less than 200 biographies of fictitious persons. So while it is a major source, it is also a very problematic source, and absent independent (contemporary or earlier) confirmation that a subject actually existed, we should not have article based principally on it. GRBerry 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, Return J. Meigs, Sr. is confirmed to have been a real person, and Appleton's is one of 4 separate sources cited in the short article about him. It happens to include some details that aren't in the other articles. That also seems to be the only article I've contributed to where the Appleton's citation was a valid good-faith reference. (I had been cognizant of the famousamericans/virtualology spam for some time...) --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Appleton's shouldn't be relied on as the only source for an article. I can even agree with removing the link to the virtuology spamfarm and with reverting the edits of COI editors. But I very strongly disagree with a blanket robotic removal of all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia -- especially in cases where there is information in the article that was based on that source. Wouldn't you want to know where the information came from? Robotic obfuscation of this source is unhelpful and even counterproductive. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89.

    Currently a user is deleting all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as Giorgio Vasari's encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces this kind of response to others, so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The damage being done is not minor. I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your capable hands. No need to involve me further, please. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (I have now amended Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, with published references, to bring its status more clearly into the open. That might have been the first administrative job; then based on it, discussion of effacing Appleton's from Wikipedia might have been opened. It's a matter of good administrative style, really. Over and out. --Wetman (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    absolutely so--notorious for inclusion of false biographies of non-existent people, see the article on it. This has been discussed here at some length. We are indeed removing all references to it, and all articles depending only on it for documentation will need to be carefully checked, and the facts in all articles using it as a source in any way re-verified elsewhere. DGG (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation of this bot for Wetman. But what I dont understand how we are going to know that these are articles are unreliable once we have removed the references. As there is a real risk then why have we not added a warning template. We add a template for things like "lacks references" (as if readers cannot spot this). Surely this would be a good reason to add a subtle template (or better a ref that warns )that links to an explanation of the warning. I assume this has already been debated... Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See above and sub-sections]]. However just removing them all in a bot sweep does create problems. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: as I said above, it would have been preferable to check them off individually via a cleanup project, so the action needed (trivial delink vs. rewrite due to Appleton's being a major content source) could be dealt with, rather than casting them adrift where we can't find them. Is there a listing anywhere? Or can the bot change be undone? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be ideal would be a listing of the 200 false entries, so we'd know the other 10,000 (or however many) entries can be used as sources. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that all of Appleton's is suspect. Those are the 200 known about, and the overall editorial standards weren't so brilliant. [34] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I get your point and saw that source, it just seems pretty WP:Kettle-ish to be complaining about another encyclopedia's editorial standards. -- Kendrick7talk
    I'm not sure I would have such a problem to using Appleton's itself, carefully, as a source. And I'm a bit worried that the supporters of this purge will go on to enact a pogrom against other, more-reliable but commercial sources, that are also linked from many Wikipedia articles because of their usefulness and reliability. But that's not what this discussion's about. Rather, it's about Klos and/or his followers spamming Wikipedia with links to a "revised" version of Appleton's, when we know Klos has an axe to grind about American history. I think we can safely rule such links as unreliable and remove them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    David, as the person who first raised the issue of these links here (others had already questioned them many times on other talk pages and noticeboards), I just don't see much hunger for pogroms against other sources. As for more reliable "commercial sources", I see no problems with such sources. Most sources are ultimately commercial in some way when you get right down to it; .gov and .edu sites are just getting supported by tuition and taxes, not ads. Someone's got to pay the bill, after all. --A. B. (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, please see my response above to similar concerns.[35] I don't know about any bot removals -- if that's going on, it's a big mistake, I think. In my own case, I've been working on this list of 270+ other Klos domains besides famousamericans.net. In most cases, they've been added by single purpose accounts such as the much-aggrieved Pputter who complains so vociferously and bitterly above. 95% of the time, the citations I removed were supporting irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements that appeared to have been added mainly as an excuse for a link. Feel free to step through my recent edit history to see the quality of the stuff I'm writing about. In a very few cases, I was concerned about removing the citation, so I left a {{fact}} tag to alert other editors. On the whole however, with >1000 of these links already in articles across multiple Wikipedias and 100s more added each month, I personally better off halting the problem then taking anything of value to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

    Again, if there are any bot-deletions going on, I think it's a mistake. These links have to be removed judiciously one at a time. --A. B. (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    think most links were added in a spammy way to figures where there are much better sources; many were added to the reference sections (if there was no external inks section), further confusing the situation. Some no doubt have been added as actual source references by serious editors, and these are the ones that should be identified & better sources used. I'm sure there is no-one for whom Appleton's is actually now the best source. That's a lot of work potentially though & needs to be done by people with good sources available. The links removed can be identified from the bot history. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec2x)Also, if citations to some parts of Appleton's Cyclopedia were allowable then we'd face a perpetual danger of those 200 fictitious biographies being reintroduced. WP:RS doesn't really have a clause for picking and choosing which parts of a reference to use. We might disallow a cite from The New York Times if the paper later ran a retraction on the story, since the retraction is documented. In order to use Appleton's Cyclopedia we'll basically have to wait for some reliable and vetted publisher to release a revised edition. Some people who lack proper qualifications have tried, but this website really shouldn't be referencing scores of important biographies that way. DurovaCharge! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, hold on here, there were thousands of Virtualology sites used as references before our volunteer editors began their efforts to clean-up a citation mess. The site has been up since 2000 and has been used as a reference and external link since Wiki began.

    Additionally, no one, and I mean no work even in print layed out the birth of the US Presidency as Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies, Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United States and Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled until Mr. Klos started placing his research on line which was duplicated by your users from John Hanson not being the 1st President and the distinction between the Continental Congress and the United States in Congress Assembled. Most of this work was taken and never cited. Just review his book and web pages in Appleton’s on these men. Revisions abound there and elsewhere in the Appleton’s content.

    Now you delete all the links and references most of which have been there for years, content that was taken and cited from the Virtualology Project and want to say your users have taken it from their personally owned 6 Volume 19th Century Leather Bound Appleton's? If you are going to blacklist Mr. Klos and his work on the internet in this field for the last 8 years then be sure to remove the content. Golaith is welcome to squash this small fry called Virtualology but do not take its content without properly referencing even if you deem him a poor scholar. PLEASE --97.97.197.9 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.

    The FamousAmericans.net Biographies that were worked on the last few months were famousamericans.net/samuelaaron/ to Barbour, John Merrett and are listed alphabetically. Also Deb did the Presidents of the United States (both constitutions) and Signers of the Declaration of Independence. These represent about 95% of your contentions that occurred in the last 3 or 4 months. The rest began from Wiki's inception to date and less then .1% were done by Virtualology Voluntary Editors. Hope this helps --97.97.197.9 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — 97.97.197.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic other than to add links.
    To the contrary, campaign-spamming of these domains were a concern in March 2007
    --A. B. (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, and Pat said May I believe that leaves your inception until March 2007. Additionally, you have the written record and can see not much occurred until recently. I have tried to giv you the major names that we edited but A.B. how many years was V's content used by Wikipedia without any incidents. To blacklist with notices on December 8 and done December 10th after all these years of sharing information was not judicious. Additionally the additions stopped as soon as one was challenged a couple days ago. If you take a hard look you will see the bulk of the infractions by the Voluntary Editors occurred on the names listed above in Appleton's and the Presidents and Signers. For this we are truly sorry -- it was errors of ignorance on what was permitted and correcting links not greed. additionally there are over 25,000 Biographies in Appleton's and this 200 number or .0008 is no reason to dismiss this as a reliable source. What is your ratio? Once again we remained under the same company and owners since 1999, to Blacklist over this and not remove the content with the references is also a wrong and two wrongs do not make a left. Once again we apologize --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean no personal disrespect toward Mr. Klos or his labor. The duration of his site is not relevant here. His work simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline because he is not a recognized expert in the field of history. I have a degree from an Ivy League university in history, but I'm not an expert either, and it wouldn't matter whether I had started a website on the subject fifteen years ago or today. Editors sometimes make a mistake and try to cite something that fails to satisfy WP:RS. This website's standards do not endorse a response of leave the citation until a better replacement can be found. Instead we take out the unsatisfactory source as soon as we identify it as such. We'll supply replacements when we can. DurovaCharge! 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To dismiss Appleton's is a mistake and any good scholar knows it. Additionally, Wiki has been using and citing this content since its inception. The only reason why it is being blacklisted now was its content was fed to Wiki these last few months incorrectly (with snow shovels to boot).

    This probably would never have occurred if Mr. Klos was not embroiled in personal challenges and took his eye off this Virtualology endeavor. He asked us to work with Wikipedia to “fix it”, if possible, but protect the proprietary content. For Wiki to use Virtualology and the edited Appleton's Content without the proper citation is wrong. To justify this action after four years of deeming the content an appropriate reference is also wrong. What percentage of Wiki content is fictitious? Is it more then the .008 your editors are quick to criticize the Edited Appleton’s for? The point is this blacklisting of the Virtualology Project and the edited Appleton’s references are more akin to book burning then a scholarly edit of the historical record. Look at the record and you will find virtually no editorial involvement of Virtualology in Wikipedia before the Spring of 2007 and to repeat ourselves, your writers have been using our content since your inception. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Hmmm, while the behavior of a few editors certainly looks like spamming and COI, I very much disagree with blacklisting the site and robotically removing all references to it. While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine. I would leave the robotic edits to simple reversion of edits made by suspect users. I find it deeply troubling that it is being removed from articles willy-nilly where it was in fact used as a source for the information. I would much rather have that very clearly indicated in the article rather than have the source obfuscated. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pputter I look at our Veinor link addition reports for the first 5 months of 2007, I see perhaps one handful of links added by neutral editors; contrast this with massive quantity of links you added. Here are your numbers:
    • Edits made to Klos-related article by Pputter's accounts:
    • Net edits to Klos-related articles: 175
    • Net edits to other articles: 1075 (all related to link additions that I've seen so far)
    These do not include promotional your edits to other Wikipedias.
    --A. B. (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood, but once again the edits were on the what I discussed earlier all the A’s

    A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Aar-Ada Ada-Ale Alg-Amh Amh-App App-Ash Ash-Azp Aar Ada Aaron, Samuel Abad, Diego Jose Abadie, Eugene H. Abascal, Jose Fernando Abasolo, Mariano Abbadie, Abbadie, Antoine Thomson D Abbe, Cleveland Abbett, Leon Abbeville, Claude D Abbey, Edwin Austin Abbey, Henry Abbey, Richard Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Abiel Abbot, Benjamin Abbot, Ezra Abbot, Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Henry Larcom Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joel Abbot, Joseph Hale Abbot, Samuel Abbot, Samuel Abbott, Austin Abbott, Benjamin Abbott, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Charles Conrad Abbott, Edward Abbott, Gorham Dummer Abbott, Horace Abbott, Jacob Abbott, John Abbott, John Joseph Caldwell Abbott, John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Joseph Carter Abbott, Josiah Gardner Abbott, Lyman Abbott, Robert Osborne Abeel, David Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, James Abercrombie, John Joseph Abercromby, Sir Robert Abert, John James Aboville, Francois Marie Abrahams, Simeon Abreu, Maria Ursula Lancastro Acamapictli, I. Accault, Michael Acevedo, Gaspar Zuniga Acland, Christina Harriet Caroline Fox Acolhua, Acosta I. Acosta, Ceeilio Acosta, Joaquin Acosta, Jose De Acosta, Santos Acrelius, Israel Acton, Thomas Coxon Acualmetzli, Acuna, Antonio Ochoa Acuna, Cristobal De Acuna, Juan Acuna, Manuel Adair, James Adair, John Adair, William P. Adam, Graeme Mercer Adams, Adams, Abigail Adams, Alvin Adams, Amos Adams, Andrew Adams, Benjamin Adams, Charles Adams, Charles Baker Adams, Charles Follen Adams, Charles Francis Adams, Charles Kendall Adams, Daniel Adams, Edwin Adams, Eliphalet Adams, Ezra Eastman Adams, Hannah Adams, Henry A. Adams, Herbert Baxter Adams, Isaac Adams, Janms Hopkins Adams, Jasper Educator Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John Adams, John F. Adams, John Quincy Adams, Julius Walker Adams, Nehemiah Adams, Robert If. Adams, Samuel Adams, Samuel


    And the B’s to Barbour, John Merrett stopped here:

    A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Bab-Bak Bak-Bar Bar-Bas Bas-Bea Bea-Ben Ben-Bid Bid-Bla Bla-Bol Bol-Bou Bou-Bra Bra-Bro Bro-Bro Bro-Buc Buc-Bur Bur-Byr Bak Bar Baker, William Spohn Balam, Chilam Balboa, Miguel Zevallo Balboa, Vasco Nunez De Balbuena, Bernardo De Balcarce, Antonio Gonzalez Balcarres, Alexander Lindsay Balch, George Baldwin, Abraham Baldwin, Ashbel Baldwin, Charles H. Baldwin, George Colfax Baldwin, Henry Baldwin, Henry Porter Baldwin, Jeduthan Baldwin, John Denison Baldwin, Joseph G. Baldwin, Loammi Baldwin, Matthias William Baldwin, Maurice Scollard Baldwin, Robert Baldwin, Roger Sherman Baldwin, Theoron Baldwin, Thomas Balestier, Wolcott Balfour, Nisbet Balfour, Walter Balfour, William Ball, Dyer Ball, Ephraim Ball, Thomas Ballard, Bland Ballard, Harlan Hoge Ballard, Henry E. Ballevian, Adolfo Ballou, Hosea Ballou, Latimer W. Balmaceda, Jose Manuel Balmaseda, Francisco J. Balmes, Francisco Javier Balta, Jose Baltes, Peter Joseph Baltimore, Lords Baluffi, Gaetano Bancroft, Aaron Bancroft, Edward Bancroft, George Bancroft, Hubert Howe Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse Bangs, Francis C. Bangs, Nathan Banister, John Bankhead, James Banks, David Banks, Nathaniel Prentiss Banneker, Benjamin Bannister, E. M. Banoini, Juan Banvard, John Bar, Benedict De Baraga, Frederick Baralt, Rafael Maria Baranda, Pedro Sainz De Baranoff, Alexander Andrevitch Barba, Pedro Barbace, Fesberto Caldeira Brant Barbee, William A. Barber, Francis Barber, John Jay Barber, John Warner Barber, Mary Augustine Barbosa, Januario Cunha Barbour, James Barbour, John Merrett stopped here Barbour, John S. Barbour, John Strode Barbour, Lucien Barca, Francisco Barcena, Alfonso De Barcena, Mariano De La Barcia, Andres Gonzalez De Barclay, Robert H. Barclay, Thomas Bard, John Bard, Samuel Dickinson Hub Barker, Fordyce Barker, George Frederic Barker, Jacob Barker, James Nelson Barker, James William Barker, Josiah Barksdale, William Barlow, Arthur Barlow, Francis Channing Barlow, Joel Barlow, Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, Thomas Harris Barnard, Charles Barnard, Daniel Dewey Barnard, Edward Emerson


    Or about 800 names from the beginning of meshing 25,000 biographies into Wikipedia database. You should note that over and over again we found not only sentences but complete paragraphs cut and pasted from these sites with no references. Add to this the Signors, Presidents etc and links to Counties named after them and yes we did do 1000+ names with volunteers making mistakes and redoing the same page several times. We did, however, seek a way to just do external links like find-a-grave and were advised the edits with references were the right way to go. As for Spain and Italy alot of the names in Appleton's had no English listings but they did have Spanish so we went there but in the same names. We saw it as a good opportunity for both of the Florida Internet Companies. We thought as you so eloquently stated that it was a “boon to your historical articles” We errered and if you look at some of the comments that one Editor noted, it looked like we were incorporating the references right from the A's and thought we were given a method on how it could be done properly. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To reply to a comment a few posts above, our guideline is called reliable sources. Appleton's is not reliable: it contains hundreds of fictitious entries. A good scholar might use it judiciously, but Wikipedia does not have the resources to vet content in such a manner. The only practical solution for this website is to select which sources are generally accurate and accept them as citations indiscriminately. Various permutation of this discussion have occurred many times in this website's history. DurovaCharge! 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, there's a well-informed and judiciously balanced assessment of Appleton's Encyclopedia by our learned reference critic. "While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine."Indeed, I might say "'While there are some problems with Giorgio Vasari' Lives, most of its entries are just fine." You'd all think I was a bit of a popinjay, wouldn't you? Well, Appleton's Cyclopedia needs no introducing to anyone competent in the C19 American biography field. All mentions of it are currently being stripped from Wikipedia. More thoughtful and responsible editors are now forced to move the Cyclopedia references into footnotes, where they are less exposed to thoughtless monkeying, and no references to on-line text are possible. You should be alerted that this might appear to outsiders like myself very like administrative incompetence. I don't need to be drawn in at any level: this post is FYI only. So, do as you like—— as if you had to be invited! As you were. --Wetman (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikisource has a handful of Appleton's articles as well as discussion of the problematic material. There's also a link to Appleton's content at the New York Public Library:
    --A. B. (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (replying to Durova after ec) Say what? I thought the whole idea behind using a wiki to build an encyclopedia was precisely to harness the resources of the masses to vet the content. It is preposterous to to even suggest that ANY source can be used "indiscriminately". Even the best sources contain errors. Simply because this has been debated in the past (and never completely resolved) is not a reason to proceed as if it has been. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why WP:RS and WP:V work in tandem. Our standard is verifiability, not truth among sources we regard as generally reliable. Take your complaint to the policy and guideline pages and see whether you can work out a better standard than we already have. Many have already tried and I see no fresh argument here. DurovaCharge! 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202.

    Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are:

    Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90.

    The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Wikipedia Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Many people host information on the Internet that is accurate, but insufficiently vetted to satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. So far as I'm aware, your endeavor meets Wikipedia's definition of self-published work. As such, in order to be citable the endeavour would need to be overseen by someone who has recognized expertise in the field of history. That requirement hasn't been satisfied. DurovaCharge! 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Where do we go from here?

    Based on everything I've seen, I become ever more confident of the assessment that the vast majority of these links were spammed, often very cynically to irrelevant articles, notwithstanding the pleadings of various sockpuppets above. Even if you believe Appleton's is a quality source, the links added usually provided were to articles that nothing not already included in the article and the citations added by the spammers (not regular editors) frequently supported either odd factoids or obvious stuff that needed no citation. I invite supporters of this source to step through diffs in my recent edit history to see for themselves just how junky most of this stuff was.

    we respectfully request you run a comparison of the content of the Virtualology sites with the content of the Wikipedia Articles as then you might understand how much of the Virtualology content has been duplicated on Wikipedia --97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Nevertheless, I must say that I am disappointed in the way this has all unfolded. I had hoped the link removals would be made judiciously with care taken to find replacements, verify no link was needed and or add {{fact}} tags. Based on having dealt with citation spam many times before, I estimated above that this would take many hours. Instead I see some others making up to 5 removals per minute using semi-automated tools and a host of frustrated regular editors complaining. Spam mitigation should always be a background task around here with care taken not to disrupt our encyclopedic content and ongoing editing.

    What's the best way to fix this? One option would be to temporarily whitelist the domain, revert the hastier edits, then properly remove the links.

    What do others think? --A. B. (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having restored the Appleton's Cyclopedia reference (sans url) to Return J. Meigs, Sr. twice in the last 12 hours (see my comments above regarding the good-faith nature of this reference), I believe that the baby has already been thrown out with the bathwater. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Return_J._Meigs%2C_Sr.&oldid=41702868 - started in March 2006 with FamousAmericans.net online content and there are thousands more, most not even cited. Instead of working together on correcting our "Spam" mistake our content is no longer cited, Virtualology is blacklisted and error messages warn of spyware associated with Virtualology sites is flashed when people try to utilize our 8 year old online legitimate sources. How can this possibly happen? Mr. Klos supported this Wiki project from the beginning and even commiserated with your founders, when his content started being used to born Wikipedia. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How does one retrieve the communication between Wiki and the following names since they have been deleted?

    • User:24.73.72.214: 20
    • User:24.94.139.230: 198
    • User:66.93.248.72: 9
    • User:71.42.169.190: 9
    • User:72.77.10.31: 10
    • User:97.96.197.9: 104
    • User:72.187.245.33: 2
    • User:Cedarkey1: 205
    • User:Damserlet: 393
    • User:Natnews: 17
    • User:Pputter: 242
    • User:Solknats: 9

    --97.97.197.9 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a heads up I removed all links to famousamericans.net for a complete record of pages that contained links to it please see here for a complete listing of all interwiki links please see here βcommand 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So here is one part of our case, close to a thousand references of Virtuaology content cited with no "spam" claims whatsoever. How can you just unilaterally do this to content that has been referenced by Wikipedia as Virtualology's for so many years? A. B., this is more grevious then our errors as you know better. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't removing the references without removing the material sourced from the references a violation of WP:CITE#Say where you got it? If the source actually is bad we should be removing the bad information with it, and not letting it linger. -- Kendrick7talk 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Evaluation As this subject is not my specialty, I am going to check with some actual specialists in historical reference sources tomorrow, and get some idea of the current status of Appleton's. I would be very surprised if the method of compilation met even minimal 20th century standards of accuracy. My impression is that it is used when there is nothing better. But there is-- not free or course--but much more reliable and in thousands of libraries.
    There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [36]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.
    the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [37]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [38]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.
    They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.
    there is a convenient free online bio of the day at [39]. Today's it's Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free access to the biographies in the current monthly update at [40] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For that one bio where there was unique info. from appletons--are you sure its correct? For articles where it wad listed as one of many sources, the question is whether it was actually used as a source, or just added as a spam reference. DGG (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checklist created

    I've created a checklist Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/famousamericans.net/sourcechecklist from the historical linksearch Betacommand just provided. If anyone wants to work through the articles systematically, it can be done from there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Could someone who understands the Betacommand bot argument for removing Appletons update the article for Appletons - it is nowhere detailed as the stuff above. I cannot believe we have changed unreliable poorly sourced material into unreliable unsourced material. I prefer the former. Particularly if the wiki Appletons entry explained how unreliable it was and that article was clearly linked to each time it was used a reference. Couldnt we use a clever bot to do that? Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COIBot

    I missed this discussion, though I did see that famousamericans.net was added to the blacklist. There is a large list of domains above, and I think all these reside on server with IP 66.45.34.101. I have added that IP to COIBot, who will now report every time a website with that IP is added. Check Special:Linksearch/66.45.34.101 every now and then.

    Let me know (e.g. on my talkpage, or here) if I have to create some reports on external links, the linkwatcher database COIBot accesses is not too old, but still may contain quite some interesting information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted page view request

    Resolved

    An administrator has agreed to review the draft citation for accuracy. DurovaCharge! 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For about six weeks now I've been in contact with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. With the deadline at hand she needs to double check her citations, but one of the pages she was referencing has recently been deleted. Would someone oblige with a temporary undelete for this academic purpose? Please contact me for details. DurovaCharge! 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which page is it? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel Brandt's biography. Used to be a redirect, now it's salted. She just needs it for a couple of hours. DurovaCharge! 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it's the same request that Doc Glasgow recently turned down. [41] That user says he's doing research into Wikipedia and that he's an undergraduate at Harvard. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough one for me, if it was just about any other page, I wouldn't worry too much about it, but this page being undeleted for even a short period of time could have serious consequences. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide material privately to her? She's authorized me to give out her e-mail to an administrator. It's an @harvard.edu and I've been working with her for long enough that I'm confident this is genuine. DurovaCharge! 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about this, she really just needs to verify that the citation is correct. So perhaps you could confer with her without actually disclosing more than a few quoted words or something like that. DurovaCharge! 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does he need the page to be undeleted exactly? The request didn't make much sense. He says he wants to see one particular diff, but if he already knows what the diff says, why does he need the undeletion? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, bear in mind that this is (reportedly) for an undergraduate essay, not an academic paper, so there is no pressing academic issue here. I would urge caution unless the requester explains the request in a way that makes more sense, and also provided the material is not in any way controversial. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Measure twice, cut once. It's a Harvard thesis not a book report. -- Kendrick7talk 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's standard practice at this level to double check all citations before turning in the final draft. Just making sure everything is correct. DurovaCharge! 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard practice at which level? This is an undergraduate essay. And which citation needs to be checked exactly? If it's a citation that was in the article, he can get that by looking elsewhere for it, or just asking one of us what it was. That doesn't require undeletion. As I said, on the face of it, the request makes little sense. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Slim, it's a Harvard thesis. I spent a summer at Harvard; I know what their expectations are. People have gotten expelled from that university for honestly forgetting to include citations. They don't mess around. And it's not about a citation that was in the article. A diff of the article itself is being cited for analytical study of site dynamics. DurovaCharge! 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova, undergraduate work is pretty much the same the world over. If the student wants to use a diff as a citation, it will be useless because the article is deleted. The diff is not available any more. Even if undeleted then deleted again, the link still won't go anywhere. So the request as stated makes no sense. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think others have been right with their firmness on the policy issue. Deleted is in fact, deleted, and you might help by explaining this to the student. As to what she needs, be it for college or high school, Harvard, or East Podunk, that makes no difference to us. It would be a kindness if you could help her understand the citation difficulties. Perhaps you could suggest sources other than Wikipedia? Jd2718 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really deleted like Fahrenheit 451 deleted. It's really more like it is in a private collection; so no harm in asking for access to the resource. Even most of Harvard's libraries aren't open to the general public. -- Kendrick7talk 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I really think someone should contact this user and clarify things. But be careful, the last admin to post deleted edits to someone got desysopped as I recall. Further, this is information about an identifiable individual who disputes the accuracy of it, and believes it to be a privacy violation. Posting it to someone is very likely to upset him. Now, unless we're going in for the "stuff Brandt we hate him anyway" video-game nonsense - that should give at least pause for thought. Does this student really need this? Why? How is deleted, and thus independently unverifiable material of any academic value - I'd take some convincing.--Docg 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as an academic here, I can't imagine any need to cite the actual language of the article. All the student needs to do is indicate in the citation that the page was deleted. Chick Bowen 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's simple enough for the student to provide the citation and just let someone say yes or no. I suspect we can work this out. -JodyB talk 20:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-indent+e/c) I didn't think Harvard allowed people to cite Wikipedia. But if the person wants to cite the source we cited, surely it's not a major problem for us to find the cite and send it to them?
    If it is something in the article that they want then I would tend to refer them on to OTRS. I know that after Everyking, there is a chilling effect against admins providing deleted information. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When the subject of the paper is Wikipedia itself, of course Harvard allows students to cite us. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS have no more authority here than anyone else. If I were taking the OTRS call, I'd decline it.--Docg 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    She told me it's not life or death, so let's not ruffle our feathers too much. I doubt she needed the entire page or even the entire diff. Probably just wanted to check the url and a couple of words of text. If anyone's willing to do that much, I'll be back in an hour and can put you in touch. Otherwise let's let it go. Thanks for the responses. DurovaCharge! 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: there's a difference between a request from a college undergraduate and a college professor. If this is truly important and moves forward, maybe the student needs to have his/her professor make the request.
    Also, isn't it early in the year to be actually writing up a senior thesis? I thought students did the actual writing in the last frantic month or two of their last semester. --A. B. (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, Harvard's fall semester ends 23 January.[42] -- Kendrick7talk 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for Christ's sake. A student requests a copy of something, certainly possible and reasonable with Special:Undelete, and it this conversation turns to whether or not Wikipedia is cite-able and whether the "really" needs the information and whether its too early to be writing this paper during the school year. The student simply wants to make sure that the information in his / her paper is correct. Provide the damn thing or don't; put the wiki-politics and speculation in the trash where they belong. There's simply no need for over 1000 words about the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To respond to a couple of posts, actually she's putting the final touches on it this weekend. That's her deadline. I floated the possibility of whether she could provide further bona fides for this request. She wasn't sure on the spur of the moment how she would do that and she had to head off to the library. The idea of her providing the draft citation to an administrator for factual confirmation seems reasonable. Anyone up for that? DurovaCharge! 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems perfectly fine, and I'd be happy to verify the student's citation for her. Natalie (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to MZMcBride--the drama in this case has to do with the history of this particular article, and is not surprising. Obviously if it were almost any other it would be an open-and-shut case. Chick Bowen 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I respect the concerns here and would not have submitted the request unless I were very confident it's legitimate. DurovaCharge! 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm sure, but you have occasionally been known to be wrong.--Docg 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nods, mea culpa for that. That's why I asked her about bona fides. Anyway, two administrators are working on it now. Thanks for the responses. :) DurovaCharge! 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An update, if anyone cares: I've been in contact with the student, and they apparently want to use a copy of the article to provide context for the deletion debates, which they are using as a case study. I think the student is certainly real - they are using a Harvard email address and about five seconds on Google brought up a few pages about them. I've actually suggest they contact Daniel Brandt personally, and then the two of them can work things out themselves. Natalie (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, now I've become aware of that also. That's very different from what I understood earlier. DurovaCharge! 06:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, has she tried www.archive.org? If she isn't picky about the exact version, they have snapshots of it every 3 months or so prior to deletion, although the 16 September 2006 version is scrambled. -- Kendrick7talk 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) starting to hope Harvard theses aren't graded on a curve[reply]
    Actually I wound up pulling the Wayback Machine files and that worked out fine. Everyone seems to be satisfied (except possibly Mr. Brandt, but he'd need to take that up with the Wayback folks ). DurovaCharge! 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no shortage of wikipedia mirrors out there in any case. They copy of the article I have to hand comes from one of them.10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)
    I still think the person would do well to contact Brandt:
    1. Out of fairness to his concerns about his privacy
    2. In order to get his side of the story if he wants to share it, thereby getting a better paper/thesis/case study. Brandt has written extensively on his concerns about Wikipedia's accuracy and ethics.
    --A. B. (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and was in contact with both of them. Brandt expressed a willingness to help, but obviously still had concerns. The student apparently also has concerns about her privacy, though, and did not want to contact him. There's really nothing more we can do at this point. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AWB Checkpage

    Resolved
     – I see it eas dealt with by now. Od Mishehu 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a notice for admins - the AutoWikiBrowser Checkpage needs to be updated. I see there are requests that are about a day old. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Prisoner

    Just come here for advice, really. An anon IP User:86.149.192.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits nothing but this article, and all he ever does is remove an external link to "The Prisoner Appreciation Society", which is slightly more than the usual fanclub, as it has produced some credible analysis over the years. I am aware that there was a split in this organisation some years ago and wonder if this is somebody disgruntled. The diffs are [43], [44], [45] and [46]. I left him a notice asking for consensus here, but no reply. Now, if I ask for page protection, it is likely to be refused, because the vandalism hasn't reached the level where it would normally be applied; similarly, if I report to WP:AIV, it would not be regarded as critical enough. However, this guy will be back. Do I wait until he does it again and then report? I have tried to WP:AGF but he doesn't seem keen on talking. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Prisoner Appreciation Society has been around for long enough to build up some credible history. As such it is in my view a significant club, at least sufficient to justify a link in The Prisoner. Last time I was at Portmeirion I seem to recall that they were running the Prisoner shop at No. 6. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And paradoxically, the IP address resolves to Ipswich, the erstwhile, if not current, PO BOx for this organisation. Curiouser & curiouser. Be seeing you. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IP addresses are funny things - i'd rather die than live in Ipswich! I have left comments for you on the IP address talk page as to why those edits were being made (as for some reason I could not edit yesterday). Feel free to copy them here if you wish. Just to summarise, it was agreed that the link should not be added to the article, the comments you make above are incorrect, as is Guy's response. Cheers :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <----outdent Replied on IP talk page. Probably to nobody's satisfaction. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to edit anymore

    Block my account. This website is a waste of time; it's a bad habit, and only causes useless contentions. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:BLOCK, self-blocks and requested blocks aren't permitted. Try the wikibreak enforcer and set it appropriately if you wish to not return. Sorry you feel the need to leave though. — Save_Us_229 08:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this script, it enforces a WikiBreak.--Sandahl 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems

    There is a backlog of over a month at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This message is specifically for all those new admins who stated in their response to question one in their RFA that they would work on copyright issues. :) Right now there are only about two regular admins who work on it. Garion96 (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A really great read and analysis of wikipedia and something to point to to Register readers

    WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Way cool! Thanks for posting about it. Looks like some very interesting material. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, I've saved it to hard drive. Excellent link, thanks. DurovaCharge! 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Angela Beesley

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This article was under discussion at Articles for deletion. However, this was no consensus at that discussion to do anything at all. After closing the discussion, I have looked over our biography of living persons policy and slept on it. Since there was no consensus to do anything WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards grants me discretion to consider the subjects request. I have done so and deleted the article. We are doing the right thing here. Regards, Mercury 15:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should it have been deleted? Surely the nominations preceeding this one would have been able to unearth that. — Rudget speak.work 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say so. There is no evidence of biographical coverage in independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At best this should be a redirect to wikia. But with no consensus that it is neccessary to keep it, going with the subject's wishes seems about right.--Docg 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, if not only for this but for other reasons as well. ^demon[omg plz] 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What other reasons are they? Spartaz Humbug! 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain exactly how/why the article contravenes BLP. Specifically what unsourced questionable content was there? Mercury, you are very closely aligned with Durova. I don't believe you are sufficiently independant to have closed a discussion on an article that Durova has nominated for deletion. Especially on controversial grounds. We have been here before and I honestly do not believe that it is right for anyone who could be perceived in any way of having a bias or an interest in closing this debate. This is written from the point of view of someone who generally supports the extremee interpretation of BLP that JzG and Doc glasgow pursue and extreme interpretation of BLP in favour of the subject. For me to be raising significant levels of concern about this has to sho how problematic this deletion is. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Way to go with the ad hominem.--Docg 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I hadn't intended that to be an ad hominem and I have struck the text. I'm not sure how this can be an attack since I generally agree with your position but I'm sorry to have offended you. It was not intentional. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aligned with anyone. Mercury 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you haven't responded to the request to explain exactly how the article violated BLP and you commnted during the !! incident that you had been too closly aligned with Durova and were seeking to distance yourself. I honestly doubt that closing this AFD and then deleting the article counts as distancing. If you can't explain how the article violated BLP should I feel free to undelete it? Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Please do not restore this deletion. I have explained the applicable section above. Mercury 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No you haven't. You cited a policy said what you had done, made an assertion that BLP applies but haven't actually explained what the violation is. Spartaz Humbug! 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Violation? The closing admin took the liberty of interpreting the BLP policy. If you don't agree, send it to DRV. It'll save us all the ugliness. Sean William @ 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The ugliness is because Mercury closed an AFD where he could be percieved as lacking independance, made a controversial deletion citing policy but now refused to explain how he reached that conclusion. I'mn serious about requesting an explanation. Refusing reasonable requests to explain controversial decisions is one of the things that admins absolutely must not do and demonstrates absolute contempt for other users. So I repeat, please can someone explain specifically how this article violated BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never been a good wordsmith and perhaps I assume too much about what others can see. For that I apologize. I just noticed FT2's summary on the thing, and I endorse that. Mercury 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not have anything of your own to comntribute to the reasoning? I think its very dubious that you can't explain your reasoning yourself but need to rely on an outside view from another user. You should not assume anything. The fact that other users have requested an explanation should be enough to tell you that more information is required. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)I thought I had given enough information. Ok, I was wrong. I had not given enough. But it is explained now. Mercury 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spartaz, Please, PLEASE do not undelete the article. It'll increase the conflict tenfold. Sean William @ 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Now that Mercury has actually answered the question with FT2's help, there is a rational even if I'm not sure i agree with it. I agree that this needs DRV not a wheelwar but I'm not sure I want to take it there myself. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No I answered the question. Just not to the detail you required. I just happen to endorse FT2's summary. If you feel this needs DRV, post the templates, link the AFD, and include your rationale. Regards, Mercury 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You utterly failed the explain how the article violated BLP until FT2 helped you out with the outside view. In controversial cases like this the ideal is that other editors should be endorsing your explanation not the other way round. There is a point in every discussion where one of the points of view starts to give some ground. One of the dark arts of closing the discussion in your favour is to try to avoid antagonising them at that point - just in case they decide to play silly buggers for the sake of it. I'm at that point - I'm appalled that you closed the DRV and that you then took a controversial decision and failed to properly answer good faith concerns about your actions. But I'm also generally of the view that we should interpret BLP more widely then the consensus allows. I'd leave it at this moment. You really didn't handle this way and I'm not sure that you make the right call but Sean is right in that we don't need any more drama or ugliness right now. I'm on the edge of dropping this but I'm very disappoined how closed you seem to be to the notion that you didn't handle this very well and that you might learn some lessons from it. You still haven't properly addressed the concerns about the possible perception of not being suffiently independant. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did explain at the very top of the thread.
    • There was no consensus.
    • BLP gives me discretion in a no consensus result.
    • The article's subject requested deletion.
    • There is some question about the RS, N, and V.
    • I used my discretion permitted by the policy.
    • I deleted the article.
    I'm not sure how this is being misunderstood.
    I don't really have to address the perceptions you insinuate. Thats your problem not mine, it does not affect the pedia. You see the afd debate, the result was good. Regards, Mercury 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you really not see the possibility that you can be perceived as not being independant in this case? Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us just focus on the merits of the decision, not my perceived alignments. Mercury 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed a couple of editors suggested redirect to Wikia (including me), but it wasn't mentioned in the closing statement. — Rudget speak.work 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would matter if anyone did the redirect or not. Go ahead and add it, I've not salted the article. I don't think there would be any objection. Mercury 15:53, 9 December 20e07 (UTC)
    I've been bold and redirected to Wikia - no need for redlink.--Docg 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You got there first. :) — Rudget speak.work 15:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no consensus to delete this page what so ever. Your actions do nothing more than to provide justified criticism and amusement at Wikipedia Review. This may serve to reinstate Durova in the good books of the Wikipedia hierarchy but it does nothing at all for reputation of impartiality of the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A wise choice Jehochman - there is little point going to deletion review until thing significantly change around here. If those at the top can have themselves removed at whim, it does not inspire much confidence in the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giano II (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict x3) Giano, I respectfully disagree. Biographies on barely-notable people are, in my opinion, one of the biggest issues facing our encyclopedia. (I'd wager that OTRS gets more e-mails about barely-notable living people than anything else.) If the subject doesn't want the article, and the community can't agree with itself, then the article should be deleted. Sean William @ 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But didn't the AFD at least show there was no consensus for deletion? RxS (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To reply to the criticism here, I would be happy to see this article go to deletion review. I have nothing to hide. Yes, I did mentor Mercury and nominate him for adminship. I didn't ask him to close this discussion and if he had told me he was planning to I would have advised him not to in order to avoid precisely the insinuations that Spartaz makes. I don't keep a little throng of minions to do my bidding and at this time I'm particularly interested in avoiding any appearance of that. I resigned my bit because of an occasion when I failed to assume sufficient good faith and leaped to an unjustified conclusion. If there's a lesson to be learned from that, we should all be assuming more good faith rather than trying to construe mischief. Please do not compound my error by duplicating it from the other side. DurovaCharge! 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wondering, what part of BLP applies? RxS (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion review would be a great place to ask that question. DurovaCharge! 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I would think that would be worked out before deleting the article. Interesting, thanks. RxS (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was. See WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards. I invite everyone to read this section, regardless of your stance on this issue. Sean William @ 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably wasn't clear enough, what I was getting at is how does policy speak to this deletion in particular (community consensus, subjects wishes etc)? It's incumbent on the admin performing a controversial action to not only announce it here but to explain the reasoning behind the action (and not just pointing to the policy itself). I don't have any real feelings about the article itself but I'm tired of admins performing actions that could reasonably be expected to be controversial and not explaining them clearly (or at all in some cases). RxS (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "After closing the discussion, I have looked over our biography of living persons policy and slept on it. Since there was no consensus to do anything WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards grants me discretion to consider the subjects request. I have done so and deleted the article." unclear? Mercury 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there was no consensus to delete the article at any of the 7 AFDs. A good start would be an explanation how no consensus to delete ends up being no consensus to do anything...generally at AFD a no consensus to delete means a default keep (unless another option that doesn't involve deletion presents itself). A more detailed explanation would help connect the dots a little better. RxS (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Normally no consensus is a default keep. In this case, WP:BLP grants extra discretion in no consensus debates when dealing with biography. BLP is also an overriding policy. Mercury 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right, it is overriding policy. But you have to do more than to just invoke it. When using discretion, how does that relate to this specific case? Is it doing harm? What does the subject say about it? Is there high amounts of negative vandalism or is the subject only known for one negative occurrence? How exactly did you come to use the discretion in this case, which was bound to be controversial? I think it's important for an admin in these kinds of cases to go the extra mile to expain their actions and not just point to a policy. RxS (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Godwin's Law of Wikipedia - The further a discussion gets the more likely someone is going to bring up WR? FWIW, I think this was good call. Relevant information can be merged into Wikipedia or Wikia, there was nothing and unlikely to be anything outside of that since she is not a public person outside those areas. Shell babelfish 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside view: Usually an article with many AFDs ends up as a speedy keep/delete with clear consensus and rejection of abuse of process, if AFD'ed again. That this article was not, despite probably everything reliable sources have to say on the subject being dug up, and more AFDs than almost any other article I've seen, suggests ambiguity and uncertainty are confirmed to exist. BLP AFD criteria allow precisely the leeway given, for exactly the reason used, in this circumstance. Closer seems to have made appropriate use of discretion permitted by BLP, to close a deletion that was 1/ questionable anyway from a WP:N viewpoint, 2/ distressing to the ambiguous-notability subject, and which is clearly within the scope/anticipation of BLP deletion rationale as closer states. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well Brandt was actually subject to a "complex merge" but was in practice deleted. I was unhappy with what very much amounted to deletion (because some content such as the CIA cookie matter was simply deleted afterwards), but if Brandt was an article that should be deleted then it is hard to see why Beesley's article should have stayed. The total number of sources was much smaller. I will likely DRV the Beesley article at some point in the future after more reliable sources exist. For now this seems like a dead issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a little random thought, there's no pleasing everybody here, a few months ago, articles on barely notable Wikipedians were being kept. This was much to the annoyance of some users who considered these users only kept an article on Wikipedia because "we" liked them and showed them some sort of favoritism. Now a few months later, the deletion is seen as favoritism. There's just no pleasing some folks. Bah humbug. Nick (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Months? You might want to check the history of the previous AFDs a little more closely.Geni 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Years! I didn't realise the article dated back as far as that. It's quite clear the assertion of notability clearly grated on users as far back as the first AfD in 2005. Nick (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the deleted article so I can't see the quality of the sources myself. Assuming that as others have stated, they were inadequate to establish Angela Beesley's notability beyond some marginal level, then mercury made the right call. The BLP policy explicitly gives the closing admin discretion to "delete" in no-consensus AfDs of marginally notability people that explicitly don't want an article. If folks don't like this, blame the policy and revise it. I don't see how any of this should have anything to do with Durova, Mercury's relationship with Durova, Wikipedia Review, Daniel Brandt or the phases of the moon. --A. B. (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole discussion should be taking place at WP:DRV. -- Kendrick7talk 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I always find the deletion of an English article when it's sitting happily in 7 other languages at little contrived.[47] Want to know about this person? Sorry backwater English speaker, go learn a real language! But I'll wait for someone to open the DRV to make that argument. -- Kendrick7talk 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now under discussion at deletion review. I have no opinion either way myself, but I prefer a review in the forum for, you know, reviewing deletions, than a potentially-dramatic thread here. >Radiant< 19:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is BLPN dead?

    I have watchlisted Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard since its inception; recently, one of the editors who started it and kept it working seems to have become disillusioned with Wiki, and the board doesn't seem to be working. I lodged a request for help and attention five days ago at WP:BLPN that has not gotten a single response. I am not an admin, I am not well enough up on legal threats and other BLP issues to know how to proceed next, I'm not even certain how big this problem is, but I'm uncomfortable with the things being posted by the COI/BLP/NPA/AGF-violating editor—Nraden, apparently the husband of T.S. Wiley of the Wiley Protocol. I'm also concerned about the messages that I removed per BLP[48] and the subsequent talk page messages from Nraden (talk · contribs).[49] [50] I had only waded in to those pages because another editor asked me to look at the sourcing there; now I'm more concerned that the BLP noticeboard appears to have died, that there is a BLP/COI issue unaddressed by admins at these articles, and that I've gotten no guidance on these articles. For all I know, I'm the one in the wrong here, and the silence means there's no issue; I really can't tell. I've seen the complaints that WP:ANI is too busy, but if no one watches the other boards, of course all the complaints will end up at ANI. If I'm wrong here, and there's no serious issue, it would be nice if someone would say so; if the BLP/COI/NPA/AGF issues need attention, it would be nice if someone would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like now is a good time to seek more volunteers for it. Here would be good, but since it doesn't necessarily take an administrator to pitch in maybe a broader request would be good also (Village Pump, Community Bulletin Board?) DurovaCharge! 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the same thing happen at the COI message board, so I'm wondering if we have a widespread problem; if people only read WP:AN/I, these other boards are never going to work well, and we'll continue to see complaints that ANI is overburdened. I guess my question is, is it me? Are my posts to those boards not intelligible, or is there a shortage of editors viewing those boards? It doesn't take an admin, but it does take people knowledgeable about the issues, which I'm not in either of those areas. It's the same issue that led to the demise of the community sanction noticeboard; not enough eyes on those other boards. I'm wondering if BLPN will become unuseful without Crockspot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm guilty of only checking AN and ANI. Partly because there is only so much time I want to spend on certain matters. If there was a rota to help people organise their time, I might contribute more at other boards. There are sixteen of them listed at {{Editabuselinks}} though, which does imply that some will get less attention than others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPN seems pretty active to me. There may not be enough volunteers to address all of the concerns and I'm sure that issues fall through the cracks, but to be fair I've posted concerns that have been underaddressed on ANI as well. :) It's the nature of the volunteer system; people pick & choose the issues they address. It is the only way I can think to do it unless we issue job tickets, which has many other inherent difficulties (not the least of which is that not every volunteer is suited to or interested in every job and volunteer burn-out would likely be astronomical). It's also the nature of the messageboard. If you aren't addressed early, you're likely to be missed. I know that when I participate at BLPN, I tend to look at the last several entries for unanswered issues. I don't typically browse higher on the board. My general practice if I post at one forum and don't receive assistance is to either look specifically for a contributor to that forum and ask individually or, as you've done, to seek a different forum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody watching the Arbitration enforcement subnoticeboard?

    No administrator has replied to my comment posted two days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and I have noted a similar complain about the lack of administrator involvement from the user who posted a question few days before me. So please don't hesitate and read that subnoticeboard. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, now at least I know it's not only me :-) See above, same issue at the BLP and the COI noticeboards. But go to AN/I and see how quickly someone says I need to "calm down" when I'm 100% calm :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, Sandy, please ;o) ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested moves

    Continuing in the same vein as the previous two threads, Wikipedia:Requested moves has been functioning with only a skeleton staff of administrators (User:Anthony Appleyard, User:GTBacchus, and me) for quite some time now. Two of our main admin closers (User:Stemonitis and User:Duja) are on extended wikibreaks. The result has been that the backlog tag has been up on RM continuously for over a month. Getting even one or two administrators to help out there would be great. GTBacchus and I have ourselves commented on several of the backlogged discussions, which makes it harder for us to close them. I'd like to have a bit more time I can spend doing real editing. Help would be much appreciated.... Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleared about half of them, and will pick off a few more later today. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    High-speed vandalism of AIV and other pages

    Resolved
     – Already blocked by Teadrinker

    User W345thn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be vandalizing several pages. Once reported at WP:AIV, he seems to be blanking the report repeatedly. I include it here, so that someone notices it - given that it's in flux at AIV. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and he's blocked already. Thanks! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review of User:WJH1992

    WJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hi, I would like a block reviewed. I have indef blocked User:WJH1992 for small but ongoing disruption. This user is not a vandal, but is completely uncommunicative (doesn't even use edit summaries, blanks talk page, ...), doesn't seem to listen to any advice and/or warnings, and is in general a waste of time to a number of editors. He makes many, many very small edits, all of which have to be checked because at least half of them have to be reverted, because he doesn't follow the MoS, replaces images with image missing templates, replaces correct links with links to redirects, and so on. Individually, none of these edits is worth a fuss, but when it is about over a 1,000 edits in some five months (minus more than a month he has been blocked in total so far). I'll give one example: on LDV Pilot, he has in two months time been reverted eight times by four different editors for making the exact same edit[51]. While I feel that indef for small infractions may be harsh, I see no other solution for the moment. I suggested to help him (as a kind of mentor), and pointed him to Adopt-a-User as another possibility (since I had already blocked him, so perhaps he didn't trust me or so).[52] Fram (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know, but an indefinite block sounds a little harsh. You said in a couple of your warnings that he had been making some good edits, as well, and those and the block length don't mix well, in my opinion. I think it would be better if the block is reduced to a lower time, and have someone talk to WJH (someone uninvolved, of course), see if this can be sorted out properly. Although it seems as though the patience of those who deal with him is running out, I really don't think an indefinite block is necessary at this stage. Spebi 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anyone uninvolved is willing to mentor WJH1992, and if WJH1992 is willing to be mentored, I have no objection to a reduction of the block or an unblocking. It's a pity to block someone who is not a clear-cut vandal, but continuing in the same way was not really an option either. Fram (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite sounds good, which is not "infinite", but "until the user starts to play nice with others". The user clearly acknowledged the warning and knew he was going to be blocked. If the user requests unblock and shows any promise of better behavior, unblock, but there seems little reason to believe in any specific block time. Kusma (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With or without someone willing to mentor him, the onus is on him to promise good behavior if he's unblocked. I've looked through his entire history of edits to his own talk page, and only see two responses to warnings (he managed to get blocked not long after each, anyway). I agree this was a good time to show him the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider the LDV Pilot edits. The thing is that (according to the established view of English grammar at any rate) WJH1992 is right and is improving the article with those edits. All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong.

      Xe is applying (one view of) a rule of English grammar known as the sequence of tenses. It's a pity that we don't have an article that would explain it. (The nearest that we have is User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses.) But you and they can read about it in a large number of books on English grammar. You have blocked an editor in part for editing with the aim of correcting the grammar of articles. Further, we have several editors who are reverting attempted grammar corrections, calling them "vandalism". Those are entirely the wrong things to be happening.

      Kierant, Pyrope, and Fram, consider this a rebuke: Good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles are not vandalism, and it is wrong of you to be treating them as such in your edit summaries and by your use of the vandalism rollback tools. This is not the first time that I've seen genuine attempts to make the encyclopaedia better rebuffed as "vandalism". Doing so is wrong. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't think I ever called him a vandal, I explicitly started this post with "this user is not a vandal". The admin rollback tool is also allowed to use when reverting "large amounts of mistaken edits". Many of his edits were mistaken, some were apparently debatable. I don't see how the "is" version violates e.g. this. The "is" relates to a fact, a definition, while the "was" relates to an event. Mount Everest is a mountain that was first climbed by Hillary. Gondwana was a continent that was first described by someone (it doesn't exist anymore). Mona Lisa is a painting that was created by Da Vinci. Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • G, you boldly stated that WJH was right and we were wrong. I do notice though, that both the examples I found when looking for "sequence of tenses", and the edits you so far have made on User:Schoen/Sequence of tenses, only indicate (logically) that "The Mini was a car that is produced in..." is inccrrect, but not that "The Mini is a car that was produced in..." is also incorrect. Fram (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did qualify that several times. As you can tell from xyr username alone, without even reading the potted autobiography that xe wrote, the user is still of school age. There are various lies-to-children that are told at various levels in schools about the sequence of tenses, notwithstanding the various schools of thought amongst grammarians and linguists. What this editor was doing with the grammatical changes fits a somewhat oversimplified idea of the sequence of tenses, namely that the main and subordinate verbs must agree in tense. (Several sources call it agreement of tenses rather than sequence of tenses. There was a whole discussion by scholars in the early 20th century in a journal called The Classical World as to what this grammatical feature should properly even be named, arguing about whether it is a sequence, a harmony, or an agreement. Such discussion in part hinged on arguments about the implications of each name.) The editor was aiming to correct the grammar, to be in line with what xe apparently thought to be correct grammar. As I wrote, it was an attempt to correct the grammar, made in good faith.

          By the way: Go and look at some of the things cited in the further reading section of the article and some of the many other sources on this subject. Not everyone agrees with the Columbia Guide. Some sources propound an "attracted sequence" rule and then give long tables of exceptions that don't fit it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • Well, those qualifications did not seem to be in place in sentences like "All of those editors that have been reverting xem are wrong." I wonder what tense they teach the children to use for "The Mini is a car brand that was owned by a British company and is now owned by a German company"... And you didn't qualify it as "according to what they are teached at school", but "according to the established view of English grammar"... (Oh, and he is a he, no need to use those ugly constructions[53])Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They were in the sentence before, in parentheses. Since the invention of the paragraph, sentences no longer need stand lonely and forlorn. They can have other sentences to help them. ☺ And if you want to try to pry apart the established view and the view that is taught to most people, you have a hard task ahead of you. It's not simple, and it has little to do with the point that I actually made, which is that it is wrong to treat good faith attempts to correct the grammar of articles as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've yet to indef block anyone, rather only to place 3 months at most. Not that I'm telling you to do it, but I would unblock and re-block for 1 month. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in what way would this one month block achieve what previous week and two week blocks have not? Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • it would avoid the appearance of an indefinite block based on such a minor thing as quarrels of grammar. This is the sort of thing that should not be escalated, lest we appear ridiculous. DGG (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...and removal of perfectly licensed images, and the impossibility to have any discussion with the user, and not following the MoS (understandable when adding content, but not when you change from the correct MoS to some other version), and changing two perfect links into one bigger one that then redirects to the first of the two earlier links[54], and adding unreferenced speculation[55], and so on and so on... Focusing on one tiny aspect of this block while ignoring the overall picture could also make us appear ridiculous. But again, if anyone so critical of the block is willing to mentor, and if he is willing to be mentored, then I not only agree to a block reduction but have no problem with an immediate lifting of the block. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, there's quite a large lack of assumption of good faith on your part. Changing "Brighton, East Sussex" into "Brighton, East Sussex" can easily be seen as a good faith edit. New editors seeing the vast number of U.S., Canadian, and Australian articles that use the so-called "comma convention" can well be excused inducing from those data that that style is intended to apply to all placenames in all countries. Indeed making this convention universal is a perennial proposal. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where did I assume bad faith? I am pointing out some examples of edits of WJH1992 that are not helpful and need to be reverted. I am not saying that they are vandalism or that he is deliberately making Wikipedia worse. Please read my previous comment again. The problem, as explained numerous times now, is that all his edits (and dhe makes many, many edits, without any edit summaries) have to be checked, to see if they are plainly wrong, misguided, not helpful, or (in some cases) actual improvements. I have no problem with aan editor needing guidance, advice, help, ... but this editor is not responding to anything, not even offers to mentor him or suggestions to go to adopt-a-user. He is a well-intended waste of our time. Instead of nitpicking and misreading comments, have you actually a proposal on what to do with this case? Fram (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arsensalsa

    Resolved

    Hopefully, I've come to the right place. I often try to help out at the Help Desk and a few days ago came across this: Wikipedia:Help desk#User:Arsensalsa. I tried to help but it's all gone a bit wrong.

    Apparently, what happened was User:Arsensalsa moved their user page to a main namespace article Arsen Salsa. Another help desk helper tried to move it back, but made an error and moved it to User:Arsen Salsa instead (making a double redirect). In response to their help desk question, I tried to fix the problem, but was not aware of the double redirect issue until after it all went wrong. I found I could not move User:Arsen Salsa to User:Arsensalsa because there was already something there.

    Since then, the main namespace article has been deleted, leaving User:Arsensalsa redirecting to the user page of a non-existent user, User:Arsen Salsa. It would be great if you could fix this mess, moving the content & history of User:Arsen Salsa back to the real user User:Arsensalsa and deleting the User:Arsen Salsa page altogether.

    Apologies for any inconvenience. Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody is messing with the webpage's format

    Resolved

    Can somebody take a look at this page Juan Manuel López (boxer)‎ and fix whatever the hell is happening there? to be precise I'm getting a image of someone's "package" over the article, superimposed if you will and the addition of such a image is not present in the article's history so I guess a hacker is messing with the page. 24.139.156.65 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There was vandalism to a template that is probably included in the article. I can't check which, as I'm at work - but I believe it might be a template associated with an olympic medal, maybe? There is a thread at WP:ANI that discusses this issue, and - if it isn't corrected by now - it will be fixed soon. I've taken the liberty of copying your report to that page, so they have additional data to fix the problem. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SadPhony (talk · contribs) made a vandalous edit to Template:MedalSport that was the culprit. It was reverted by User:Edokter about 20 minutes later, the template was protected by User:Ryulong, and User:David D. blocked the vandal for a month. Andrwsc (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi,

    I am a new sysop, trying to cope with copyright issues. I've been following the contributions of User:Marina T.. Many of this user's image uploads seem problematic. At one blatant copyvio case i speedied one image, but others look like a gray area.

    I asked a question about it on the Copyright FAQ page, but got not response yet.

    Any help will be appreciated. If there's a better place to ask this, please point me there and accept my apologies. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats, privacy, telephone numbers

    This is an alternate account. I am an administrator here on the Wikipedia. A checkuser may be performed on this account to verify the truthfulness of this statement but I do ask that the sockpuppeteer account name not be revealed except with my permission. This account is not a violation of WP:SOCK. In my time here, I have received numerous personal attacks and more than one threat of a lawsuit. More troublingly, I have received the occasional death threat. My real name and photograph has been posted on the attack sites, along with my location, though not my exact address. Recently, I have started receiving telephone calls that have their caller ID blocked. These are the typical "hang-up" calls and I am no longer answering the phone to numbers I do not already recognize. Occasionally, I get voice mails though these are always blank. I do not consider any of the death threats I have received to be at all serious. None that I am aware of were made by someone in the same country as me and I never had any reason to believe this was more significant than a teenage vandal ticked off because I blocked him or her. And it is entirely possible (indeed, almost certain) that these telephone calls which have started in the past week are entirely coincidental. I am less happy with my real name and location, along with stolen photographs that are quite possibly not fair-use, being posted on attack sites. I'm considering changing my telephone number. Is this worth the effort? What other steps should I be considering? --Okay Bignose (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser confirms the above does belong to an admin. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez. Whats the point, honestly. I don't understand people sometimes. Honestly, I would suggest a wikibreak, at least in terms of your admin acct. Let the storm die down. Sad it has to come to that, but it is what it is.↔NMajdan•talk 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been done before to disappear from one account and then reappear as an admin under another account. I suggest you contact one of the higher authorities if you would like to regain your admin access while remaining anonymous. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a user gaining admin access without an RfA would stand out like a sore thumb. If an admin is going to drop and come back, I'm afraid that they should work back through the ranks to become an admin again. Yes, it really sucks, but it's also the only way to avoid a red flag on the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. In two examples some people on a certain site were able to figure out which admin had recently disappeared and then compared the editing patterns to figure out who it was. Maybe you could continue making edits with both accounts to throw them off the scent, though that there's a very fine line on what kinds of edits are allowable.. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk to your telephone company about logging the calls (they record the details) and your local police for advice regarding the caller(s) - that is what you pay your taxes for - especially in conjunction with the death threats. Talk to the service provider about the site publicising your details; if they do not have permission from the copyright holder they should not be able to post your picture (unless it was released under GDFL) and they may be violating their terms of service in publishing your information without permission (same problem about GDFL, though) or in a manner which might cause you distress. The perhaps co-incidental receipt of the silent phone calls and death threats can be cited.
    On-wiki, I suggest you WP:IGNORE/DENY, or take a break per Nmajdan. I wouldn't change account names - a new admin popping up without going through RfA is likely to attract attention, and there will not be that many recently inactive admins to sift through, from the off-Wiki sites. Sorry about your experiences, and I hope this has helped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren't already in contact with WMF, please communicate with them. Also I'd be glad to talk to you under whatever account you wish. Suggest you set up a gmail account for use in connection with Wikipedia volunteering because your location can't be traced from the headers. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll contact the WMF in the next couple of days. EVula has a very good point, I talked to another admin who changed account names earlier this year and it didn't really do much to help protect his identity. For the record, I have never used an alternate account other than this one. I'll also start star-69'ing the dropped calls, though I doubt this will give me much information. Does that even work if the person only lets it ring once or twice and I don't pick up? To the best of my knowledge, my telephone number has never been posted in relation to my Wikipedia account, not anywhere. And I haven't had any hang-up calls today so hopefully it was all just a false alarm, though I am still concerned. I'll please ask people (including those off-wiki) not to speculate about my identity. I am sure I am not the only Wikipedia editor who has been in this situation. Also, while I am not thrilled with so-called attack sites posting my personal information or using pictures without my consent, I am far more concerned with what third parties do with that information. Anyway, if I choose to start editing with a new account, I will check with a couple of trusted people to make sure I am not being abusive. --Okay Bignose (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You can refuse calls that are callerid blocked, I would contact your phone provider about that. Prodego talk 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the United States, at least, you can arrange a trap with the phone company if you get a civil restraining order. You'd document the exact time of each harassing call and you'd need to synchronize your own clock so it's accurate to the minute. I suggest you contact an expert for advice about the details. DurovaCharge! 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the timing issue was a myth, and the phone company knows regardless of when the call was. Prodego talk 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a question of correlating particular events. In the past I've had two weeks of evidence tossed out by the police because my clock wasn't synchronized with official time. They probably could have correlated it rather easily by shifting all the data two or three minutes, but some people refused to take that effort. Some jurisdictions try any excuse to avoid paperwork. While I was filing a report once I saw a woman turned away even though she was reporting a death threat. A minute later I spoke to her outside, we compared the fine print on our restraining orders, and she marched right back and compelled the clerk to take her report when she realized his excuse was invalid. DurovaCharge! 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you eliminated the more mundane possibility of telemarketers using Predictive dialers that dial too many numbers, leading to "call abandonment"? Do you get a lot of telemarketing calls? If you live in a country with an equivalent to the United States National Do Not Call Registry and have not yet added your name to it, perhaps you could do so as a test (though there might be a delay before it takes effect). I apologize if this idea is off base. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not offbase. Actually, I was just about to suggest that as the most likely cause. Hangup calls, blank voice messages, it fits the description of certain dialers perfectly. I had that problem for short while; a friend is an engineer for the phone company and confirmed. El_C 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Predictive_dialer#Silent_calls. The half-life of these dialer stalking can be between three to six months, if I recall correctly (but sometimes it will only last a week or two, as was the case for me), so changing one's phone number needs to be weighed accordingly. El_C 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many phone companies allow automatic rejection (or voicemail) for unidentified calls. My preferred VoIP carrier also allows me to shunt specific numbers directly to voicemail. - Jehochman Talk 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James Arbuthnot

    Can someone uninvolved with the Arbuthnot Family and "The Troubles" sagas (there must be someone...) take a look at the recent changes to James Arbuthnot, with particular regards to the talk page. Because I was involved in the long-running minor flareups over the deletions of members of this family in the past, I don't really want to start dishing out blocks, protects etc in this latest installment of this long-running edit war. — iridescent 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    this one is worth looking at for its utter trivialness. I wont say more. Consider this a spoiler warning. DGG (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - not just this one but the whole Arbuthnot saga is one of the silliest things I've ever seen people get worked up over. This is possibly the least read page on Wikipedia. — iridescent 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tidied it up to make it marginally less attackish but, like Iridescent, it's not in anyone's interest for me to get too involved. The triviality of describing Arbuthnot's smile and voice notwithstanding, the history of animosity between the brother of James Arbuthnot (who is the main contributor to the article) and Vintagekits suggests this "promise" is more about perpetuating that personal dispute than improving the article. Despite pleas from a number of admins for both editors to leave this to those with less of an axe to grind, Vk has gone ahead with his edits. I'd also suggest anyone looking into this consider that both editors are under probation: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Rockpocket 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of sexual abuse claims at American Boychoir School

    The American Boychoir School has been the target of several claims regarding sexual abuse of students. The school's Wikipedia article reflects these claims with a variety of reliable and verifiable independent sources. There have been several attempt to remove this information over the past several weeks, all of which have been reverted. A recent edit by User:Dj Downing of the article removed all details of sexual abuse claims, noting in the edit summary that "lawsuit settled, plaintiff agrees not to post this type of information on internet. Management of The American Boychoir feels this is continuing to damage reputation of schoo[l]". Above and beyond the fact that there is no information provided to support the existence of a settlement and the fact that neither I nor Wikipedia are parties to this lawsuit, the claimed terms of the settlement do not negate the fact that reliable and verifiable independent sources support an extensive array of allegations regarding abuse that may have affected the plaintiffs involved in this alleged settlement as well as others who did not take part. As such, I reverted the content deletion and explained my actions (as I had previously) on the user's talk page, noting that even under the terms of the settlement described in the edit summary, the settlement would not wipe out the past or negate the fact that these allegations had been made in the past and that removal of sourced material from Wikipedia articles is not an acceptable practice. A Google News search finds no evidence of a settlement that would meet the description in the edit summary, though this article discusses a settlement with one individual and addresses continuing efforts at litigation by other parties. What should our stand be in this situation and how should we address potential concerns that the organization's reputation might be negatively impacted by claims made against it that are properly supported within an article. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not censored. I say ignore them, just make sure our sourcing is sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    suggest bringing to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPNDGG (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • O noes! They got sued IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY! The article looks acceptable at face value, sources are sound and as long as we pay careful attention to any comments from the school (particularly in respect of using "X stated Y" or "the court found Z" rather than necessarily stating Y and Z as fact), then I see no problem. If whitewashing continues we can protect the page. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know one of these days one of the randomly inserted unsourced claims is going to be true and we are going to get hammered for ignoreing a cry for help.Geni 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it happens all the time. Unsourced claims are just that: unsourced. That's not a judgment on their truth. Verifiability, not truth, as they say, and often much to the chagrin of people who know damn well it is the truth. Sad but probably for the best. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

    The above Request for Arbitration has now closed and the final decision is available at the above link. Both User:TDC and User:Xenophrenic are prohibited from editing pages related to the Winter Soldier Investigation. Should they violate this restriction, they may be blocked for the duration specified here.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
    Anthøny 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFCU and WP:SSP results

    Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Richprentice (see SSP case) and decide what to do with the identified socks? --EoL talk 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Think that's sorted. Blocked all the sock accounts indef and the main account for 72 hours - probably best to leave the IPs alone, blocks there would be fairly pointless. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Choosing to vanish

    Hi everyone. I opted to join Wikipedia with my full name. Back when I joined identity theft wasn't so much of an issue and employers and the like weren't so internet savvy, so I just used my full name. Always have, always will. About 2006 I saw a respected Wikipedian change their name, amend all their sigs and move on, and thought about it to the point of contacting a crat, Essjay to sound out the process. Essjay talked me out of it. (Ironical, I know). I've mulled it over a lot since, and recently a couple of things have started to impact on me. Press coverage is greater than it was when I joined. Employers, potential employers and work colleagues are more internet savvy, identity theft is rife and my government lost a fair amount of my personal details. I've got kids at school, whose mates are internet savvy. It's becoming an issue that my name is linked to Nazi propaganda, is linked to a wide number of things. It is becoming a problem that up until recently I was the most visible Steve block on the net, and people could piece together a great deal about me. It's become a problem that people don't want to use my services. It's upsetting close family members. So I asked for a name change. And I went about clearing out references to my old name, as I have seen a number of people do. That's when people started to threaten blocks for disruption, although I am unclear as to how I am disrupting Wikipedia. I've pointed people at WP:CHU, the privacy policy on meta, prior convention and common courtesy, but people feel I need to stop. Simply put, I don't think I can. My private life is more important to me than Wikipedia, at the end of the day. I'm asking the community to allow me to change over about another 900 links to my old user name so that in time, I drop down the search engine. I'd like to think we still extend the courtesy enjoyed by other users. I like to think that do the right thing is still the goal around here. So since I've been told in no uncertain terms to come here and ask the communities input, that's what I'm doing. I'd like you to allow me to continue. I hope you will. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's perfectly fine. bd2412 T 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I support your decision. I also invite you to contact me. DurovaCharge! 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen your edits popping up on my watchlist. Once I'd worked out what you were doing, I was fine with it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think generally speaking, after a name change, users shouldn't go changing every previous signature of there's to point to the new username - a redirect is sufficient. This case is obviously different, and a very legitimate reason for changing previous signatures to point to a new username. When Wikipedia first started, users were encouraged to use their real life names but this can in fact have real life implications and therefore, I fully support Steves request to carry on changing his sigs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I support as well. I would note that the quote you were given from m:Right to vanish was selective. Further down that page (#2 under "Alternative measures"), it specifically calls out replacing signatures as acceptable in such cases. -- JLaTondre 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. Though I wasn't entirely thrilled with you touching my RfA, you did support... :D. We shouldn't place unreasonable demands on those who choose to edit. And as we know, there is precedent. Prodego talk 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't have a problem with you changing the links. Though, maybe that is a good task for a bot, rather than the edits coming under your account and traceable back to you. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose "Hiding" is a temporary account that will be replaced with another permanent account once those replacements are all done. Having done a lot of sockpuppet investigations myself, I would be glad to coach this editor in how to return without raising suspicions. DurovaCharge! 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To pile on the previous comments, I too fully support your recent edits. You have every right to protect your privacy, and changing the links to your previous username following a username change is more than reasonable. AecisBrievenbus 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with that at all.--Sandahl 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user edit summary, "Undone by Bot"

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Scien. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam), claims "Undone by Bot" or "Undone by Wiki Bot", and appears to be IP 67.40.80.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    based on the recent edits on GM LS engine. Seems the contributions consist of reverting nonsense. thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked based on a username violation...WP:USERNAME: "your username may be blocked if it looks like a bot username, especially names that end in 'bot'; such account names are reserved for approved bots". — Scientizzle 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users

    Resolved

    Jimmy Wales recently forwarded an e-mail from a Wikipedia contributor to us in OTRS (ticket #2007112610017678, if any other OTRS agents want to take a look) writing in dismay that this ISP, which is his only means of home Internet access, has been hard-blocked indefinitely. It seems this ISP provides free dial-up access to many low-income individuals in Washington State; however, the ISP's entire CIDR block was hard-blocked indefinitely by Jpgordon on November 6th as an "open proxy," preventing all edits from the ISP even from logged-in users, under the justification that an abusive user could theoretically call into one of the ISP's access numbers via long-distance and use it in proxy-like fashion.

    Due to the potential for abuse, I can understand why a rangeblock may be justifiable as a preventative measure - however, given the large amount of good-faith users on this network as well, I echo this contributor's concerns that a hard-block may be too heavy-handed in this instance - many users of this ISP have no other means of home Internet access available. AFAIK, the range has not been a particularly disproportionate source of abuse in relation to any other ISP. The abuse potential is also much lower than an open proxy - the costs of long distance calls aren't particularly attractive when free Internet is available at the library or Panera Bread down the street, and unlike an open proxy, which can generally provide solid anonymity, a dial-up ISP is aware of the landline phone number of every user that connects, and is thus far more equipped to respond to abuse and identify the persons responsible.

    For these reasons, I would like to propose reducing the block on this range to a soft block on anonymous users only, with account creation disabled, to allow legitimate good-faith users to request an account via the usual channels and edit while logged in while still filtering out most abusive users; it seems counter to the spirit of our project and the Foundation's goals to block all users of this ISP, many of whom are low-income individuals who cannot afford other forms of home Internet access, from editing Wikipedia completely. While I have requested agreement from the blocking admin to reduce the block to AO ACB, he insisted that a hard-block on this range was consistent with community consensus, so I have decided to request input from the community here: does the community agree that the entire ISP should be hard-blocked and prevent all users of this ISP from editing Wikipedia, or would it be wiser to reduce it to a soft block so good-faith contributors can request an account and log in to edit? --krimpet⟲ 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case only I would support this. Prodego talk 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too agree that account creation should be blocked, as I detailed above; that way good faith users can still request an account through e.g. unblock-en-l and then log into edit, while still leaving most abusive users out in the cold. --krimpet⟲ 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sounds good. DS (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just curious what ISP does this range belongs to? Because whois appears to point to blue frog mobile which does not look like an ISP to me? --WinHunter (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The CIDR range is indeed 64.40.32.0/19, registered to "US Network Services" of Seattle, WA, presumably the upstream provider of NoCharge, who is the ISP in question. (Regarding Thebainer's question: dialup.) --krimpet⟲ 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal sounds good, but are you sure that that is the right range? I was thinking this was going to be about the nocharge.com range. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Krimpet's assessment. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a big difference between a pure open proxy, on one hand, and an ISP with inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities, on the other. Keep in mind that, for years, it was almost impossible to block AOL users for the same reason. Yet we didn't block AOL as an open proxy. The same applies here. We shouldn't block legitimate ISPs simply because they aggregate IP addresses in a manner we find inconvenient. AOL was much larger, and yet Wikipedia survived the vandalism and abuse that came from there. We'll survive this, too. *** Crotalus *** 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, particularly with Crotalus horridus's AOL analogy. Low income people have particular reason to access a free online encyclopedia since economic hardship may curtail their access to other reference sources. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not "inadequate subscriber differentiation capabilities" - they don't ask for any authentication, you dial in to the local number and you're on the net, period. No account needed. It's the dialin equivalent of an open IP proxy. I don't mind the idea of taking them to AO-no-account-create blocking, but let's not create a false impression of what they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if anonymous login is allowed, it's still fundamentally an ISP and not an open proxy. It's not out of bounds to tell a user not to connect to an open proxy and to instead go directly to the Wikipedia page. It's much more unreasonable to tell them they have to switch to a different ISP in order to edit — especially when this might involve substantial inconvenience and/or financial expenditure. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through the OTRS ticket and checked some of the background here and yes, I'd support a softblock of this range, with ACB enabled. There's likely too much collateral damage here - Alison ❤ 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is another example of why the "no open proxies" rule is stupid and should be abolished. Don't forget the millions of Chinese users you are banning from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.171 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, no "no open proxies" makes good sense on a number of levels, but this block seems to have been used presumably by one person running Tor or some such; I suggest we ask Jpgordon for the background. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had planned to wait and see if Jpgordon would comment, but I see he's replied several times on his own talk page. If a checkuser comes forward and reports that there is or has been significant abuse on this ISP, I could revisit things -- especially if the abuse is recent and/or ongoing -- but until some more evidence is available, I'd also favor a softer block. If account creation remains disabled, users needing help can contact unblock-en-l. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There does seem to be a strong consensus from the diverse cross-section of the community discussing things here that reducing the block to AO ACB is the best option. :) Per the feedback here, and that the blocking admin has agreed to accept community consensus on this issue, I've gone ahead and reduced the block to anonymous only, account creation disabled. --krimpet⟲ 07:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry if I'm putting my feet in the dish, but I think there should be no double standard between {{TOR}} (and other anonymizers) and this IP. Why should users from this ISP be allowed to edit when people having to rely on TOR for anonymity reasons aren't? Yeah I know, it is nice to have people who can't afford to use an other ISP to access the Internet here, but I guess this IP was hardblocked by jpgordon after it was abused. (And really, the Foundation should really address "Should Open Proxies be hardblocked?" one day, we definitely are unable to reach a consensus on that) -- lucasbfr talk 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xeraxes reactivated

    This inactive duplicate account ("sockpuppet") has been reactivated in December 2007 apparently in order to force unsound POV attitudinizing at Alexander the Great; the user history tells the story. act or not, as you see fit: I need not be contacted on this matter, as I am not involved. --Wetman (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see any evidence this is a disruptive WP:SPA. The article is not a recreation, I suggest you assume good faith and that this is a user that comes back after a year. Or am I missing something? -- lucasbfr talk 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Србија до Токија

    I think someone should pay attention to the numerous attacks on Albanians this user has made on my talk page, calling them animals, terrorists and similar. He also called me strange, I guess that could be considered a personal attack, but I'm much more worried about the racist remarks.

    All the best, --GOD OF JUSTICE 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week (for a start, next block will be much longer), warned of relevant Arbcom decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is quite inflammatory; it means "Serbia to Tokyo", a 1990s militant slogan. As for the userboxes, well... 68.193.198.41 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical glitch that can't be reverted

    Resolved

    I don't know if this is the place to report this kind of thing, but I can't see how to remove a certain piece of vandalism. See [56]. For some reason, the word "orgy" does not appear on the edit screen and I can't remove it. Any help here would be great. Ripberger (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template vandalism. Somebody else fixed it. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I never would have checked the template. Thanks! Ripberger (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :) --Kaypoh (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BJAODN attribution by temporary undeletion

    I run one of the off-site projects that hosts a fork of BJAODN- basically, a direct copy from Wikipedia before it was deleted.

    The problem is, we need to attribute the edits on each page per the GFDL, but I don't have access to the page history.

    I'd like to bring a proposal to the table: undelete and userfy one page of the original BJAODN at a time, to copy down the edit histories for attribution.

    My question is, would administrators be willing to do this? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem with the attribution of BJAODN is not with the page itself, it's with the edits that make up the page, so unless you have a way to correct this, I'm extremely reluctant to undelete it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nearly all the edits making up the page(s) were copy-and-paste from other articles. If the original articles are noted, it should be possible to find the edits that added the guff, although it isn't a job I would like to take on as it could take hours to track each one down. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If Nwwaew will state that he is willing to search the records of the individual articles, then I think the admins should allow him this option. Od Mishehu 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, and something which I am willing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it's deleted after Nwwaew is finished, I don't see a problem. — Save_Us_229 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Selective Deletion Request: White House Phone Number

    An internal White House phone number was posted in this revision of Dana Perino. This single revision should be deleted per Wikipedia:Selective deletion as it contains sensitive information. As I am not an admin, I pass this on to all of you.--CastAStone//(talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is warranted, the number is listed pretty much everywhere. -- lucasbfr talk 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=177235123"