Jump to: navigation, search

Contents 1 If you're unhappy with some admin-ish thing I've done... 2 My admin info! 2.1 History 2.2 Logs 2.3 Usual haunts 3 References 3.1 Reading 3.2 Procedure 3.2.1 RfA closure 3.2.2 AfD closure 3.2.3 MfD closure 3.3 Templates 3.3.1 Personal boilerplates 3.3.2 Non-user talk templates 3.4 Other 4 Faux AIV Noticeboard 4.1 Bot-reported 4.2 User-reported 5 Faux UAA Noticeboard 5.1 Bot-reported 5.2 User-reported

4	WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism.
A bit higher. Pushing 8, 9, maybe 10 rpms. —Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category Tracker Summary
Requests
Wikipedians looking for help	1
Copyright violations for speedy deletion	3
Attack pages for speedy deletion	0
Requests for unblock	0
Candidates for speedy deletion	34
Backlogs
Images with unknown source for deletion in dispute	879
Articles lacking in-text citations	1060
Articles with sections needing expansion	6637
NPOV disputes	5580
All pages needing cleanup	26386
All articles needing copy edit	2193
Wikipedia articles needing style editing	9222
Stubs	2327
Articles that may contain original research	3581
Wikipedia articles in need of updating	1271
Wikipedia articles needing context	4655
All articles lacking sources	83256
All pages needing to be wikified	12651
All articles to be expanded	18659
All articles with unsourced statements	75197
Redirects for deletion	110
Rescaled fairuse images	415
Accuracy disputes	2080
Images for cleanup	134
All images with unknown copyright status	1983
All replaceable fair use images	454
Uncategorized pages	10329
All images with no fair use rationale	1866
All articles proposed for deletion	1006
Pages needing expert attention	1393
All orphaned fairuse images	2478

Crat tasks
USURP reqs	22
CHU reqs	4
SUL reqs	13
RfAs	5
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Category tracker for CAT:DFUI
Category	# of items
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 18 April 2009	1
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 27 June 2009	16
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 28 June 2009	4
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 29 June 2009	17
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 30 June 2009	1
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 1 July 2009	11
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 2 July 2009	3
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 3 July 2009	1
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 4 July 2009	6
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 5 July 2009	2
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 6 July 2009	1
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of unknown date 2009	9
Updated: 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] If you're unhappy with some admin-ish thing I've done...

...I'd recommend you drop me a line on my talk page.

Actually, I'd recommend you take a deep breath, make sure I actually did screw up (entirely possible), then drop me a line.

Please, do not email me about admin stuff; I try to keep everything on-wiki if at all possible. If I've blocked you, there's always {{unblock}}; I also keep all blocked user talk pages on my watchlist, and will check back on them a few hours after I've left my notice.

Also, I am open to administrator recall. To see my criteria for recall, read User:EVula/opining/admin recall.

[edit] My admin info!

[edit] History

I was made an administrator on November 7, 2006. My RfA closed with a vote of 62/0/0. Near as I can tell, I'm admin #1,047.

My first RfB was closed as non-consensus on July 1, 2007; the second was also closed as non-consensus on 24 December 2007. My third RfB passed (122/1/2) on 3 June 2008.

I was granted Oversight privs after my election on February 16, 2009.

[edit] Logs

[edit] Usual haunts

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
• Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
• Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
• Category:Administrative backlog
• Category:Disputed non-free images
• Wikipedia:Changing username

I want to spend more time at

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult
• Category:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates
• {{Interwikiconflict}}

[edit] References

[edit] Reading

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions
• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page
• Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance
• User:NoSeptember/bureaucrat

[edit] Procedure

[edit] RfA closure

[edit] AfD closure

[edit] MfD closure

[edit] Templates

[edit] Personal boilerplates

[edit] Non-user talk templates

[edit] Other

[edit] Faux AIV Noticeboard

[edit] Bot-reported

[edit] User-reported

• Edson Rosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warning. removal of speedy deletion tags and maintenence templates. RadioFan (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No final warning was given. Given one. Candidate for a temporary block if he continues with tag removal. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ohtx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) New user single purpose account to vandalise Xinjiang page in light of current events in China; warned twice but he removed my warning from his talkpageFuzbaby (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)‎
• Smalln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) User continues to insert a ink to a Mario flash game to Super Mario Bros.. Me and another user have tried to tell him that this is both spamming and violating copyrights (since it is an fan-made game that infringes on Nintendo's copyrights), but they continue putting it back into the article. When told there was also no indications the game was notable, they just said it was but didn't provide proof. TJ Spyke 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Fr0gg06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly adding same bogus link into Troy, New York. I have this user a lengthy explanation on why their behavior is unacceptable and was ignored with no attempt at dialog. Clearly doesn't want to follow the rules and is just being a menace. Thanks, CSZero (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Faux UAA Noticeboard

• {{subst:UsernameBlocked}} ~~~~
• {{subst:Uw-ublock}} ~~~~
• {{subst:UsernameHardBlocked}} ~~~~

[edit] Bot-reported

[edit] User-reported

• Raindance44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock) — Company or organization name, used in creating spam page. Calton | Talk 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• just4lulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock) — Disruptive username/troll? Papa November (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Discussing with the user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• BilmarAuto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock) Username appears to be for Bilmar Engine Calibration Corporation [1] --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No username problem, just a conflict of interest that the username happens to point at. Looks like a job for WP:COIN to me. rspεεr (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Gentaurmolecular1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · abuse filter log • hardblock · softblock · spamblock) Commercial name - see www.gentaur.com Philip Trueman (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a blatant violation. Consider asking the user to change their username with {{uw-username}}. - making very positive edits, I don't want to block such a productive account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I appeal (preferably to a disinterested third party admin). The policy states: "Explicit use of a company or group name as a username will result in your username being blocked. Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted and accounts that do this will be blocked." This id is making explicit use of a company name, and is adding links to that company's website. I don't see that any more is necessary. If the edits were purely unproductive I'd've gone to WP:AIV. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That said, is there any harm in asking the user if they would agree to a change in username first and then applying the block if they continue to edit? Shereth 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it somewhat disheartening that some admins don't want to enforce the promotional aspect of the username policy - "Explicit use of a company or group name as a username will result in your username being blocked. Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted and accounts that do this will be blocked." I'm all for assuming good faith, and I'm all for discretion, and yes, if this were a borderline case I would be apt to ask the user to change his or her name, but this is is a blatant case (in my opinion) and we still need to protect the project from disruption, in this case from spam. Additionally, as the blocking template states clearly, accounts are for individuals "In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy." I don't think softblocking a promotional user account and asking them to create a new one that doesn't include their company name is unreasonable at all. Cheers! - 2 ... says you, says me 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And I find it somewhat disheartening that our first reaction to someone who appears to be making a good-faith effort to contribute (and not in a wholly promotional fashion) is to "shoot first, ask questions later". Not one person has bothered to let the user know his/her account name isn't appropriate. How would you have felt if your very first communication from a fellow Wikipedian was a big template telling you that you were blocked for not following some policy you may not have fully read up on? WP:BITE, people. Users who are genuinely trying to be productive should be given some leeway. Shereth 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with the user. That wasn't so hard. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)