Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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)

Start a new discussion

Incivility blocks

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks.

Transcendental Meditation

Started editing at TM on Jan 19th 2010 as a neutral third party as the health care content was not compliant with wiki policy particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS. Some of the edits there appear to work for the Maharishi University of Management which it appears actively edits Wikipedia to conform to there POV. My edits were based on consensus developed here [[1]] and here [[2]] among other places. We have WP:COI by a couple of edits who seem to be WP:SPAs. A discussion is taking place here [3]. Well I agree this will probably need to go to arbitration in the long run with issues similar to those surround Scientology would appreciate further eye on this matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's CU evidence that this group may be a sock or meat drawer. I've filed an SPI to see if it looks like there's a WP:SOCK violation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald and his sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Consensus not to impose any sanctions on Ed/BMK beside the status quo. Filer of the SPI and their socks blocked by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per Checkuser results in another SPI. User advised that in the future a private email to functionaries-en or arbcom is recommended for such situations. The SPIs will be closed in due course. Tim Song (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• H Debussy-Jones (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ed Fitzgerald, Ed Fitzgerald, an experienced Wikipedian who has not edited since June 2009 (except for 8 edits during November), was found to be the same person who had been editing as Beyond My Ken and H Debussy-Jones. Although the accounts never technically overlapped in their editing, Beyond My Ken denied the connection between himself and H Debussy-Jones several times during the SPI case. Conflict of interest issues and other editing problems were also noted during the SPI case. I'm concerned that while this may not be a technical violation of the sockpuppetry policy, it was an attempt to evade scrutiny, especially because the Ed Fitzgerald account had a block log. I have temporarily indefinitely blocked all three accounts, and will be informing them of this discussion. I have no problem with one of them being unblocked to participate in this discussion. I would like the community to establish what sanctions, if any, should be applied in this case. NW (Talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank Nuclear Warfare for unblocking this account so that I might take part in this discussion. I have three questions to ask of the community:

• Where, exactly, did I deny any connection between these accounts?
• Where, exactly, is the abusive use of multiple accounts?
• What is a good faith editor, who believes in the value of Wikipedia and wishes to contribute to it, to do when his good faith and in-policy edits are hounded and deleted by another editor, but the policies on Wikistalking (or Wikihounding, or whatever the current term-of-art is) are so ineffective that nothing can be done about it?

These questions are neither rhetorical nor naive, they are real and of intense interest to me. Nor do I think I am the only editor who finds him- or herself in this kind of predicament. Perhaps my response to the situation was wrong – what, then, was the proper response, the one that allows an editor with value to contribute to the project to continue to edit without harrassment from other users?

Any action that I took was done with one thought in mind: to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, to improve the quality of the project (both informationally and visually) and to help insure that Wikipedia is and remains the best and most accurate source of information on the Web, the first line of information. My impression (perhaps I am wrong) is that the policies on multiple accounts are intended to prevent vandalism and other disruptions of the project. Prehaps I am deceiving myself, but I do not see my contibutions as being of that sort: I believe that, on the whole, and judged independent of anything else, I have improved the encyclopedia. I would like to continue to do that, but the path to doing so is obscure to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, FTR, the allegations made that I have a conflict of interest in regard to the film Yesterday Was a Lie are, purely and simply, hogwash. Categorically: I was not a crewmember on the film (I don't even work in the film industry), I do not know any of the filmmakers, and I wasn't even aware of the existence of the film until I accidentally came across it while editing Wikipedia. Irrespective of my own situation, I would urge that a checkuser investigate the complaint I filed here, which arose entirely from the behavior of the reported accounts, and which was in no ways motivated by any kind of personal concern other then a desire to protect the project from being used as a means of promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've interacted with Ed Fitzgerald on a few occasions regarding images on sports pages and found them at least provocative, if not insightful. I'm not saying I agreed with him (quite frankly, I don't remember the specifics), but I kept his user talk page in my watch list. When I found him blocked for sockpuppetry, I was a bit confused as it didn't make much sense, however, it appears he has gone under some serious harassment (even harassment doesn't excuse poor behavior, but it certainly is an extenuating factor) by what seems to be a rather prolific sockpuppeteer. If you'll notice, the timestamp on this case is about an hour before Ed Fitzgerald's case and was likely a response to his justified filing (this is not to excuse EF's behavior).

I too have been wikihounded by someone who has accused me of various felonies, crimes under the uniform code of military justice, and even murder. Someone bouncing around cyberspace with a bunch of IPs and/or user names can be a real headache, nuisance, and even drive editors away as cyber bullies. I for one will not stand for it.

While I understand BMK's/Ed's/whoever's motives ("I just want to edit in peace!"), I think we need to consider that this sockpuppetry may have actually been done in good faith and certainly under the auspices of WP:IAR. I believe an "severe" trouting is in order here, as long as he promises not to do it again, and perhaps a few admins to watch over his contributions for a while (make sure everything is going as he says it is and help him along the Wikipedia path). A few semi-protects on related pages wouldn't hurt either.

As for the other editor, I believe he has driven this editor, for whatever reason, into the realm of sockpuppetry and is, in fact, guilty of it himself, and did so with the express purpose of wikihounding this contributor and to file a WP:SSP case. I feel the investigation of this sockpuppeter should be expedited as much as possible and appropriate restrictions handed out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no technical abuse, and the accounts are now linked. Close the thread with no further action and move on. DrKiernan (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good thing to note next time is, if he wishes to move accounts for privacy/harassment reasons, etc, it may be best to drop a note to the Functionaries mailing list or to ArbCom. Otherwise, especially with a prior block log, shenanigans may be assumed - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we want to finally remove the note about that option being "under discussion" on WP:SOCK (the discussion has long been archived). James (T|C) 10:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea - Alison ^❤ 11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh you already did it, beautiful /me hugs James (T|C) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems worth noting that the user who submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ed Fitzgerald has just been confirmed as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sorrywrongnumber. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that the case I filed was checkusered and found to be substantially correct. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like time to close out this then. I'd ask Beyond My Ken to just stick with the one account he is using, and I think that should be all that needs doing. I'll leave this open for a bit longer in case anyone else wants to comment. NW (Talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will indeed. Thanks for redirecting the other user and talk pages. I sheepishly await whatever trouting is forthcoming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• You may want to consider nominating the disputed page for semi-protection. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but at this point, although they've been confirmed as socks, no one has blocked the accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Give it a little time (like 12 hours). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like NW has now blocked them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I've requested semi-protection for the primary article in question at WP:RFPP Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally would like to see this editor blocked indefinitely given his betrayal of the Wikipedia community. This editor started filing sock investigations against other editors within days of starting on Wikipedia. He filed one against me but fortunately I was vindicated. I voiced my suspicions at the time that I felt Beyond My Ken was a sockpuppet filing these investigations out of revenge. I think it's highly inappropriate that a sock account should be used to file investigations because it prevents the investigating admin from checking any previous history between the accuser and accused. In my sock investigation even though the admin pointed out I was not a disruptive editor, Beyond My Ken insisted that if I had multiple accounts without declaring them I should be banned on that basis alone. I find the hypocrisy breathtaking, and in my view setting up a sock to bring false accusations against legitimate editors is a major breach of trust within the community, and there is only one acceptable punishment. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You somewhat misrepresent both my stance and my situation. I suggested, on the basis of what I believed to be strong behavioral evidence, that you were the sockpuppet of two blocked editors, and that it was editing to circumvent a block that constituted the abusive use of multiple accounts. I never said, nor do I believe, that your editing per se was disruptive -- in fact, I explicitly said just the opposite.[4] The clerk that handled the case saw that there was no current disruption in your editing, and declined to act on the behavioral evidence, which he called "suggestive but not conclusive." The record of my complaint can be found here.

If anyone wishes to re-examine that case on the basis of your suggestion that I filed it vindictively because of a run-in between us under my previous accounts, I have no objection to them doing so. As far as I know, I had never heard of you or interacted with you in the past, although there is some small overlap in our editing: H Debussy-Jones: [5], Ed Fitzgerald: [6] (not unexpected, considering that under the Ed Fitzgerald account I had over 42,000 edits to almost 9,000 unique pages [7]), Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) rev: 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the suggestion that I "started filing sock investigations against other editors within days of starting on Wikipedia" is not borne out by the evidence. My first edit with this account took place on 29 November, and the first of the three (and only 3 - two of which were confirmed) sockpuppet reports I filed is dated 24 December, which is 26 days (and 946 edits) later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin decision review

Resolvedish
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, I have made a number of admin decisions over the past 24 hours that I thought reasonable, but others have questioned. I am putting these forward for review. The first is not really an admin-only decision, but it was fully addresed on WP:AN/I. I felt that the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not spelled out, so I changed the decision and informed the closing admin. I also made others aware at WP:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). This was a mistake, I should have taken to DRV. While I don't agree with the way that the AFD was closed, I have realised that I should have used another process. The second issue is that Ikip others thought that Ikip was using a bot. However, I don't believe this to be the case, in fact he uses a .NET helper app. What happened here was that he was implementing something called an article incubator, which moved BLPs to Wikipedia space. Now that hasn't been agreed upon yet, but when he was warned to stop then he did. As he was accused of using a bot when he wasn't, I unblocked. This was uncontroversial, however Hipocrite has told me that I'm misusing the tools by unblocking. For further info, see WP:AN/I#Wow, the unsourced BLPs are moving to a new namespace. The final issue is that Fuckingeveryone, a vandal only account with a bad username, was indefinitely blocked. However, on the first unblock request, where they asked for the ability to change their username they were given the unblock denial reasoning on "No fucking way". Then when they tried again, they were denied, with the suggestion that they make their request at the user rename page. Both of these responses were, I felt, totally unreasonable, with the first being inflammatory and incivil. I unblocked, with the proviso that should they edit at any other page than the user rename page they would get blocked again, and after a week I would be reblocking should no request be made. For the last incident, Toddst1 wrote on my user talk page that "Your action there seems rather more of a Kumbaya than that of a responsible admin". This was the same admin that gave the first unblock request. Toddst1 has also accused another editor of being a sock of Fuckingeveryone, though he really has no evidence of this. As I have received a message on my talk page about all these things by Hipocrite, I am taking this to the wider community to review. I don't believe that I've misused the tools, though with the deletion obviously I used entirely the wrong process. However, for the deletion decision when I realised that it was the wrong move, though for the right reasons, I reversed the delete. I also never edited the locked AFD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) According to Hipocrite, he will be seeking "further redress". If that is the case, can I also extend this review to what that should be? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) This is not the first time Toddst1 has blocked or accused people as being sockpuppets based on a hunch or weak circumstantial evidence. If he wants to be a checkuser he should apply for the tools in the usual way. –xenotalk 21:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Well, certainly Fuckingeveryone was given a rude answer; we do get tired of vandals. But as far as rename requests are concerned, when an account is username blocked and has nothing but vandalism in their history, the best course is simply to tell them to start a new account (I usually ask, "You don't really want that filth in your history, do you?"). Further, vulgar username plus pure vandal edits doesn't require any more consideration than "go away"; we're expected to assume good faith right up to the point that that assumption is proven invalid. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (ecs)I don't see how my decision on what venue to seek redress can be determined here. Perhaps if there is strong conensus that you have done nothing wrong, I would decide to drop it, but I don't believe I should be directed by AN to decide if I am seeking your recall, opening an admin-conduct RFC or an arbitration case. I contest each and every one of your descriptions of your questionable actions. To the AFD - you have admitted your mistake. This is a good thing. If you had not admitted your mistake, I would write more. You cleary continue to misunderstand the bot policy. You have stated that ikip was not using a bot. However, Ikip was using a tools which assisted with repetitive tasks, but did alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Per Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Assisted_editing_guidelines this a bot. He was unblocked, by you, with the comment "Not a bot." However, a .net helper app certainly can be a bot, and his unblock comment should have been "user promises to stop." Worse, however, is that because you blessed him with "not a bot" he yet again violated Botpol - see Wikipedia:ANI#Unapproved_bot - this is from a user who was warned by arbcom "to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing." (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned). To the unblock. While the comment by the other adminstrator was problematic, you should not be unblocking usernames like "Fuckingeveryone," when their only edits were vandalism. They do not need to seek a name change, they should make a new account when their autoblock runs out. Perhaps you could change the block to a softblock and clear the autoblock, but there is no reason at all to unblock that username with no edit history of note. Because this was three incidents of poor decision making in a very short time, I raised my concern on your talk page. If you had commented at all constructivly, that would have been all, but you have chosen to dig in your heels, which is a shame. The user was not blocked as a sockpuppet, nor by Toddst1 which I believe invalidates xeno's comment. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I was replying to "Toddst1 has also accused another editor of being a sock of Fuckingeveryone, though he really has no evidence of this". –xenotalk 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see how that is at all relevent to TBSDY's conduct, given that it happened after the problematic unblocking. Of course, Toddst1 is also obviously right, but we can let that drop from here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Given that I don't actually think I've abused the tools, I can hardly say that I've dug in my heels. However, I've taken this here so that the wider community can comment, which I feel is more constructive than a number of harassing messages on my talk page. I'm curious what sort of redress you will be seeking? With the sock-puppet business, I never said that Toddst1 blocked the editor. He did accuse them of being a sock though. As I have given my detailed reasoning here, I will not be restating it, unless clarification is required. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The redress I initially sought was you saying "Gee, perhaps I am acting a bit hasty. I think I'll slow down some." The redress I then sought was you saying something like "I see your concerns, and I'll make every effort to familiarize myself with policies I don't typically deal with before adminstrating them, as things have changed since I was active last." I think I'd probably still be happy with that statment. If you really can't see that there is any reasonable concern over your behavior, I think it would be appropriate to see if you would pass RFA again. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) You started the message on my talk page with the premise that I had used my tools hastily. In the next sentence you asked me for a reassurance that I will not misuse them. Apart from the AFD, I don't believe that I have misused them. Your final comment was that "If you cannot grant me such assurance, I will be forced to seek further redress.", which seems a might threatening. As you seemed to be extremely concerned about my actions, yet I don't feel that I've misused the tools, I took it here. I think that is a good faith action to allow others to review my conduct. Of course, I'm always reading policy and I try to be very careful in my decision making. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy has his facts wrong. Fuckingeveryone only made one unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... seems you are correct. You seemed fairly outraged on my talk page that I unblocked though, in fact I believe that you told me that it was a "kumbaya" decision. My decision would not have been different, because you denied their request for unblock to rename their account, but then another editor suggested that they add an unblock request so that they can make the request. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agree with above on the unblock being unnecessary. I don't think the unblock request itself was even serious - read the reasoning - so that account just needed to go away. I might've protected the talk page too just to make sure the comedian really found another site to vandalize. Wknight94 talk 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I can definitely see why you'd say that. However, would you characterize this as a misuse of admin tools? That is the assertion being made here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) In that case I probably would've thrown up a {{2nd chance}} prior to unblocking. –xenotalk 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) True... but given that I only unblocked so they could make the rename request, I thought that this would have been sufficient. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Not an abuse of the bit but I would have locked the talk page, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) @Tbsdy, Misuse of tools? I wouldn't go that far. Just not what I would've done. Wknight94 talk 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) At various times in the RW something like this has happened to me--that people have told me that I was displaying somewhat less accurate judgment or more irascibility than usual. It's even been hinted at me from time to time here. I generally thought that each of the things I did was more of less defensible, but learned to realise that if I was appearing otherwise, perhaps I was not the best judge. One way I came to look at it is that if people are misperceiving me, I am not being as effective as I might be. The remedy is to either take a short rest or to do something totally routine for a while--my own remedy of choice is copyediting--some chose NPP, but I find it only makes me irritable. (I'm not commenting on any of the particulars, though I will say that "further action" in a formal sense would seem to be a excessive reaction. Hipocrite should really regard your acknowledgment of the situation as sufficient.) DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I'd say that some very poor decisions have been made by Tbdsy in the last day, but I'm wondering if it's not just due to distraction and lack of sleep. I think I'd take a short wikibreak, if I were in your shoes. Your wife would undoubtedly appreciate it. Congratulations, by the way. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks :-) I stand by the two unblocks, but I have apologised for the AFD and will ensure I use the correct procedure in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Recall? Hipocrite has now asked me to run a recall on my adminship. I feel that I'm being harassed by this editor now. Can someone please review? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Well, AFAIK, you haven't opted to be open to recall, which is an optional nonbinding procedure anyway, so I don't think there is anything he can do other than file a case at arbcom. MBisanz talk 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have not asked you to run a recall, I asked you what your procedures were. You stated you were open to recall when you added the category to your user page on 18 January 2010. I have removed it from your user page, per your statement on your talk page. I believe you have confused my concern over your adminstrative actions with harassment. I am not following you around trying to make your experience at the encyclopedia worse. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) OK, but I find the timing curious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite, did you actually remove a category from someone else's user page? If it was not accurate, you should have suggested that he do it himself. I suggest the two of you should avoid interaction for a while. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I removed an innacurate category from his user page, and commented as such on his user page. If he had a problem with it, he can readd it, but I don't think he's open to recall. User pages are not sacrosanct areas not to be touched by others - it's a wiki. Review WP:OWN. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Fine by me! He initiated this conversation, I'm more than willing to stay away :-) BTW, I have no problem with him removing the category, I really had forgotten about it. No harm there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC) How so? You've said you don't think you did anything wrong. I disagree - you have disregarded my concens in totality, escalated to the communities attention before I could do any sort of due dilligence on your contribution history, and have consistantly pressed people to say "no tool abuse," with only one side of the story being presented - in fact, given a whole list of things you could have done better (softblock and fix the autoblock, use the second chance template, unblock and lock the users talk page), you haven't said yet "wow, that's a really good idea. I think I'll conform to best practices in the future." Instead, you've been getting more and more defensive - and now that I've raised the possibility - possibility that your hard fought precious grandfathered adminship might be subject to non-binding recall which you could ignore at your will, you accuse me of harassing you? I think you need to take a big step back. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Do you make it a practice to ask admins what their recall procedure is when there is a current discussion ongoing on WP:AN? As I gave reasonings for all the concerns you had, and you didn't want to let it rest, and also because Toddst1 got involved, I took it to the community. Do you have a problem with that? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Ironically, when I'm considering recalling them, yes. I also asked every admin open to recall A-B what there procedures are, untill I was informed by more than one person via email that actually asking admins to codify their recall process in the absence of a desire to recall them was harassment. However, given your situation (congratulations), and the fact that you've said something above that at least leads me to believe you might possibly consider reevaluating your approach (no need to deny it here), I'll let this drop. Furthermore, if you wanted to bring it to the community, best practice would have been to work with me to draft a question we could have presented to the community neutrally via RFC. Just for future reference. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) It seems to me, Hipocrite, that you are trying (hard) to make a rather large mountain out of a rather small molehill. I'm not entirely sure what the reason is for this, but there we go. In my opinion, an unblock that you disagree with (and even if it was indeed wrong, I have no comment with regard to that) is completely insufficient to get quite this worked up about, and I think that the unblock of the offensive name account was an assumption of good faith that Tbsdy is permitted to make, if they want (especially as the first decline message was so totally inappropriate - but I'm not getting worked up about it =/). Why doesn't everyone just go and do something useful? Ale_Jrbtalk 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) How worked up am I, exactly? No, don't answer that. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Theoprakt/open proxy blocks

I'm not to up on the whole proxy editing thing, but this user is suggesting in their unblock request (they were not blocked directly) that a massive error may have been made last year by a now-inactive admin. More eyes requested please. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked those two IPs. There are many thousands of blocked dynamic IPs like this (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/Dynamic IPs blocked as of 7 October 2007 for some examples). Another example why routine indef and super-long blocks are not recommended for IPs, even if they're open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should write a bot to check of the proxy is still open and unblock if not. –xeno^talk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea given sensible parameters, even if it unblocks some dodgy IPs. Procseebot could pick up any slack. That list (see this) was based on the listing of CAT:OP and the SORBS dynamic IP list, but it's quite incomplete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is the user:ProcseeBot that should already accomplish such a task. South Bay (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ProcseeBot seems to be driving on a one-way street. –xeno^talk 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It does however read proxy lists and checks specified ports, so it's halfway there. The complications comes when ports have not been specified, which is likely to be the vast majority. However if they're dynamic-dynamic IPs, and the blocks are older than the DHCP assignments, then they can probably just be unblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I left slakr a message, to see if he's interested. –xeno^talk 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Obsession (band)

Resolved

Can someone close this DRV before it disappears from the main DRV page? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye.  Skomorokh  05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy #4.2).

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

admission

Resolved

 – No administrator action required. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i want to know about ur new admission for early learning when started.what is ur criteria and what u need for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.116.231 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't tell what you're asking. You might like to try asking again at our reference desk, although it would help if you could be a bit more specific. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

• Moved to WP:ANI#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions pending closing for at least 2 weeks

There are currently 31 deletion discussions more than 3 weeks old, which haven't been closed or relisted:

Files - 7 discussions are still open from January 4th till January 6th (1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

Categories - 17 discussions still open from December 26 until January 6 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17)

Stub types - 7 open (1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

It would be nice if someone could close these discussions already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Closures needed at featured picture candidates

15 candidacies are ready for closure. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates. Assistance welcomed. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin abuse and how to prevent it

After having given it careful review and consideration, I have decided to respond to the following petion. This appalling behaviour must stop! I urge all administrators to sign the following statement. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (1)

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (2)

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this