This is an archive of past discussions with User:SpacemanSpiff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Most of the files were here, just a few were on Commons. He's got a final warning over there and I'm keeping track of uploads, so if there are any problems we can get him blocked; I don't think there's much else we can do. —SpacemanSpiff13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought the uploads were commons DRs and not Pufs. A thousand pardons. I've been working on a few things at the same time lately and didn't pay close enough attention. Anyhow, understood. Nice to know those at commons are up to speed. I will stay on this. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a mix of both, that's why the confusion. It's often difficult to keep track of these, it's just that I always look at both locations when there's copyvios in one and therefore find it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff14:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Um, can you enlighten me? Rajeshbieee was apprently "previously Rajeshbiee" (which seems coherent, from the name), the latter being an account tagged as a sock of Gantlet... but both Gantlet and Rajeshbieee are active to this day (last 24hrs, say). What's up with that? Was the sock tag linking Gantlet and Rajeshbiee the mistake? It's a tag that YOU applied in March 2010 (so understandably a long time ago), but looking at your other edits around that time, I can't find an SPI, only you tagging Bubluonline, Vwpsoftware and Rajeshbiee as socks of Gantlet. It was pursuant to this thread, apprently. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉17:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The Gantlet sock stuff was discussed here (YM was a CU at that time), but I just added the tag to a CU blocked account -- I didn't do the blocking. It could very well be that he just selected the first autofill option accidentally. Gantlet himself was only short term blocked for the socking, I don't think I followed this subsequently as I was just responding to some requests on it I think. —SpacemanSpiff17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not ask for that account to be checked, I don't think I knew about its existence even (it wasn't on my watchlist now which is why it took me a long time to link it to the new one) -- if you see the blocklog of the accounts YM had blocked the account as socks. This was usual at that time and very often Elockid or I would tag the socks after the blocks. —SpacemanSpiff17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion every image this person has uploaded should be deleted, as he appears to be a pathological liar it is impossible to tell whether his claims are true or false, with some of them being almost literally unbelievable. 823510731 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it was meant to be a comment on what I see his problem as, but I shouldn't attempt diagnosis here - I've changed it here and I'll change my comment in the deletion discussion too. Having said that, I stick by my suggestion that we cannot trust any of his claims about images. Is there anywhere I can see a log of his image uploads? 823510731 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking through that list of files, there are quite a lot more. It looks to me like he's been grabbing photos of people from the net and making a fair use claim when the actor is dead, and claiming he took the photo himself if they're still alive. I've nominated a few more now at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 1, but this guy's uploads go back as far as 2010! Is there no better way than to go through them all and nominate every individual one? 823510731 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If you find the source images for any, you can tag them {{db-f9|url=URL}}. That's the reason it's taking long, I've been checking to see if some should be deleted as outright copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff14:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak and Salvidrim!: At this point the obfuscation has gotten really bad. I know you can't see this Anna, but Salvidrim! can see what I mean on VRTS ticket # 2014100910013282 via the history of the ticket as well as through VRTS ticket # 2015103010013963 and compare that to the recent comments at the Pufs and Ffds. I believe a mass delete as well as a block are now in order. Salvidrim!, if you don't get what I mean let me know and I'll either email you or post on your talk page at OTRS wiki with the explanation (I thought I've seen you on OTRS. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You can send me email if you like, but really no need. I totally trust your judgement. The amount of fishy stories is enough for me. I just do not trust any of his uploads. So, a block at commons seems right. But an editing block here? Sure, I'm no fan of fibbers, but a block is preventative. He creates non-copyvio text content and is not allowed to upload here. Is this what's best for Wikipedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The second ticket above is what's annoying me. Part of the problem can't be mentioned on wiki due to OTRS confidentiality rules, but I'll email you with some general info that won't violate the confidentiality rules. As for the text content, see the SPI that Salvidrim! linked above, there's now some sort of indication that this is part of some paid editing scenario, as I've checked sources in English and Tamil to see that the promotion on here just doesn't match reality -- there's a likely situation of socking now, and there was socking with the previous account. So that's another couple of cans of worms left to be opened. —SpacemanSpiff05:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I presume you've seen his comments at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 1#File:RinilGowthampic.png and the Flickr link he's provided? As for his claim to be a film actor, someone called "RajeshB" does appear on IMDB and on an Indian crowd-source movie site, but I could find nothing on any RS (eg an official cast list from a studio). Anyway, I'll back off from this now as you obviously have more information than me, and it sounds like your investigation is going well - nice work! 823510731 (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The Flickr account has been created today. Well, many who edit Indian film articles (outside of a select few) claim that, there should probably be another such thing a few sections above. Managing this copyvio farm has become an incredible waste of time. —SpacemanSpiff10:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a new Flickr account that he says he's used to upload photos from his phone. Anyway, I don't think there's anything I can really do to help now, but if there is please feel free to give me a ping. 823510731 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your "Revert" to Barkha Dutt's page has been challenged
Seems like you're her agent. Have some courage and take it straight!!! I have given a "valid" proof URL of whatever I've mentioned regarding her marriage and that page also has her tweets and other references!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitverma (talk • contribs)
I haven't really read the article. A quick look gives me a feeling that it may be comprehensive enough for a GA. But there are factual inaccuracies. Why I brought this to your attention is the reviewer seems like a newbie (at that point in time). This was passed in a single shot. —Vensatry(Talk)16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Brahma article
The Brahma article has been seeing vandalism by new-IP and IP-hopping editors, for many weeks now. Is there a need and way to protect it from new IP editors? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as there's only one IP edit from the past two months has stuck, I've semi protected for a couple of weeks. Let's evaluate again after that if they come back to the article. —SpacemanSpiff17:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know why should not we tag the actual awards in the people page who got the awards.You can very well see that all has the proper newspaper references.
I understand that you are a champ at wiki, but the articles that I tagged today are with the enough evidences which is no where a spam.I would humbly request you to check that and delete before you verify it properly.
Please note that not anything published in a newspaper deserves mention here. An award has to be notable. Anyone can give lifetime achievement awards, in fact in this case it is the inverse that is true -- the organization is catching on to the coattails of the people it gives awards to. And given that you have steadfastly refused to listen both in the past and in the present with respect to copyright violations and using Wikipedia as a platform for advertising, I'm not sure what help you want. If and when you decide to adhere to that, help will gladly be offered, but if you continue to violate policies you're likely to find your editing privileges revoked. —SpacemanSpiff17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! THis is SWASTIK 25. Will you please explain me your problem regarding the pages which I created regarding cricket facts & statistics? They may be trivial but where lies the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs)
Seriously? You just delete the messages on your talk page, you refuse to participate in a discussion at WT:CRIC where you were invited and then go on to edit war, and now you want an explanation? But I'll bite. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, it isn't a fan site, it isn't a blog. There are policies, guidelines, and conventions that that have been established or followed, aimed at providing value to the reader; your creations are outside of the boundaries of those. —SpacemanSpiff01:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
you denied my speedy deletion i tagged it due to poor sources since it was a biography. I will look at it the cetria again, (I may have of mistagged it) Thanks for the reply however
can you place a talk back on my page please when you reply please
Zppix (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That article isn't eligible for deletion, whatever policy criteria or method you choose. As for poor sources, have you read the included sources? Have you found any statements that can not be verified? —SpacemanSpiff20:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, SpacemanSpiff. You have new messages at Zppix's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Eh no, there were five nominations before you placed one today, but on the wrong page. That's the issue here. Consensus is evaluated after at least a week, except in some cases. —SpacemanSpiff20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the issue with nominating twice? Its a good thing right? if the intention is to get them deleted. I have not seen your nominations on Nov1 & Nov2. You were the one who listed 15 templates in WikiProject talk page in the first place. Whats the issue now? Why do you want some templates removed from my list, which are nominated by you already a day or two before? Tfd clearly states that we can nominate multiple templates for deletion. Our intentions are to get them deleted. I see no problem there. If you want, you can change your vote to delete all..By the way, Thanks for your effort & response in WikiProject & Tfd as well. Chris8924 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're talking about people who frequent WT:CRIC then it won't be a problem as they understand the context. But TfD is project wide and any double nominations often result in "Speedy Keep" / "Speedy close" which will mean more effort as you'll then have to renominate them again. You can nominate multiples, but context matters.—SpacemanSpiff05:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Reverted my edit on nithya menen's wkipedia page
Sir I respect you may i know why my edit has been reverted back on nithya menen's wkipedia page as i added the image was 3rd party image but i gave the details of copy-right holder and the image is open source to use as per i know!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabh1996 (talk • contribs)
Well I'm really sorry for that, the reason i changed my account and using this because i just forgeted my password and was unable to reset it so at no time i created new account here, I'm really sorry again, and i know that wikipedia admins can track and block my ip for wikipedia and whatever changes or edits are done by me on wikipedia is in good manner not with any bad intentions the matter is just i don't know proper rules so did some silly mistakes!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhanand96 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Multiple issues occured in a article.
SpacemanSpiff Sir, I extremly regret and sorry for the recent minor edits to the Nithya Menen celebrity page, the edits which i made was not intentionally to do , it was just my contributions to wikipedia, but this small edits made me in trouble by making 'Multiple Issues' for my own edits on Nithya Menen Celebrity Page, I Request you please solve those issues from your side, & i promise there will be no further problems or any edits from my side on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhanand96 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Please review my edits on Gangadhar Nehru and revert if you find it conflicted. I thought of informing you beforehand to avoid any ban or something. Also please let me know on the reliability of source cited for the purpose of Gangadhar Nehru only and not any other person. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)05:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? QuotingK. N. Rao a non-historian, astrologer from a WP:FRINGE book? This shows that you really don't have a grasp on WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, or WP:HISTRS. I'm not sure how Bishonen feels about this, but I think a topic ban should extend to all Indian history and events and politics, something that would essentially come to mean anything connected to India. I'm glad you asked here and that's the only thing that is good about this, but the issue is that as already mentioned, you can not just feign ignorance repeatedly. —SpacemanSpiff05:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Najaf SPI
Hello. Thanks for blocking. I was editing the SPI with the wrong name (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Najaf ali bhayo) when you moved it, though, creating it again when I saved my edit, so would you mind deleting the extra report? I've added the same info to the "real" report so the report with the extra space in the name is no longer needed. Thomas.W talk15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether you're a student or not is irrelevant. Your contributions here have to be checked as they are promotional in nature and don't necessarily pass notability criteria. —SpacemanSpiff05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Please try to understand my problem. The articles which I created Hindi Movies and Dillagi (TV channel) are not relevant. I truly agree with this point. Actually, these articles where created when I was new on Wikipedia and even before when I got the Auto-patrolled right. You can check that when I got the auto patrolled right, neither a single article has been deleted, nor I created any irrelevant article. You should remove the auto-patrolled right, if many articles were irrelevant after getting the auto patrolled right. I am now familiar with the article making on Wikipedia as it has been 8 months since I'm editing. So I kindly request you that you restore my auto patrolled right. ЖunalForYou☎️📝10:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that they weren't checked earlier doesn't alleviate concerns. The Autopatrolled user-right has no impact on you, it just tells new page patrollers that a new article doesn't need a substantial check. In this case, the contributions do need a check. —SpacemanSpiff12:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not. This is the problem with all the PR crap around India TV/film. This sock drawer was spamming hi, mr, wikiquote etc and then using those mirrors as sources on here. Just search on COIN for the investigation for that. I think the foundation should probably start locking accounts and deleting crap from cross-wiki ToU violations as office actions. I'd pinged Moonriddengirl on one of the COIN investigations, but this is becoming a nightmare and any crap like this that you take to AfD ends with gratuitous WP:SOFIXIT comments, maybe Mdennis (WMF) can look to some WMF process for ToU violations as this is related to editor retention. This is a serious waste of time and I think it maybe an option for editors to stop this paid editing clean up in this area. I really don't want to lose good editors over the fact that these agencies now think that Wikipedia is an easier avenue to do promotion of their projects than IMDB and others because of the low bar in community standards. Every time I block a sock, two more sprout and rather than do something meaningful with my time on wiki, I've been wasting it on these messes, but only because there are editors who are trying to work in this area and the sockfarms are disrupting their efforts. Also pinging Smartse and Brianhe as they have been involved in quite a bit of work in this area. —SpacemanSpiff06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's very different in this area compared to caste. We do it very selectively there and it can catch the most problematic articles as a SPA there is confined to one or two articles and there are multiple such editors per article. Over here, the articles themselves are often new and there's no way to implement a 500/30, and even if you implement it on one, the promo characters can focus on their other projects and come back later. In the case of D.f4c3r it may have prevented the socks from editing Nithya Menen, but all the others would've been fair game for their promo activity. Besides, in this area there's also a huge collateral damage if something like 500-30 is implemented. Also, this area has two nuisance groups -- deranged fandom and paid PR, often the two are not distinguishable but deranged fandom isn't usually considered a problem on en.wiki (go back to my low community standards point), though if not for the ToU from WMF the community would not want to act against paid editing either, asking the few editors to fix the problems that they themselves can't be arsed to do anything about, but do not want any action as it would violate the open editing idea. —SpacemanSpiff08:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective at Wikiquote where I hang out, the problem of Indian entertainment PR (and Indian vanity press writers) is just depressing. The situation is exacerbated by much of Wikiquote's small admin corps being disfunctional. Sometimes I feel like range-blocking the whole subcontinent – not that I would. If anyone finds an effective way of dealing with this inundation, please ping me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ningauble, given that it's a small project couldn't you get some sort of guidelines on PR crap easily? A look at WP:DSI will tell you that it isn't possible here as the crappiest of sources will be used at AfD to "counter systemic bias", especially for film and TV stuff as that's where you have these dime-a-dozen websites all about, most controlled by different agencies. But if you follow the SPIs here you should be able to block at least some of the PR agencies over there. Like for example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeeteshvaishya will take you to a lot of quote stuff and the accounts are ToU violators. A combo of WP:COIN and WP:SPI watching here should give you enough for ToU blocks there. —SpacemanSpiff13:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Getting some sort of guideline is not made easier by the smallness of the community. Vocal elements that are strenuously opposed to virtually any sort of "exclusionary" rules have outsized influence in a small community, and are usually able to veto their creation or enforcement.
One might think that excluding "PR crap" on grounds of Wikiquote:Quotability would be a no-brainer, but it is often prevented by those holding the theory that anything said by or about someone who is remotely notable must be worthy of inclusion. PR agencies and their fan followers (not to mention businesspeople, wannabe writers, & etc. promoting themselves) need only start a page of PR fluff and their work is done – well-meaning inclusionists, including administrators, will leap in to "rescue" the "deserving" subject from the ignominy of deletion, or even judicious trimming, often adding still more PR fluff.
It is true that checking whether a contributor is already blocked at Wikipedia for socking or COI is informative (though prowling the noticeboards can be very time consuming) but the information is often too little and too late. One thing I might wish for is that these blocks, including IP autoblocks, were imposed globally at the outset, before the blocked users can exploit the simple expedient of moving along to a less well defended wiki. Unfortunately, existing practice seems to be that global blocks are not imposed until global damage has already been done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, SpacemanSpiff. :) I'm not as often on EnWP as I used to be; apologies for my delay. The Wikimedia Foundation has currently no policy that permits our deletion of content by TOU violators, even ones who are banned by the WMF itself. (Unless content is actually illegal, such as child pornography or copyrighted content subject to a DMCA takedown.) This would be a pretty major change in governance structure, and I suspect it would require a consultation with community - and would likely be pretty controversial. That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing; it just means it wouldn't be quick or easy. :) In terms of blocking paid editors, the WMF has been involved but only on large scale situations. There are currently 7 of us (Community Advocacy), which limits our capacity. Our team works with the same tools community does, which means that blocking people from certain regions is very, very difficult. We can lock down IPs, but it has the same collateral damage that community would encounter. We're thinking about ways to improve these processes for both staff and community, but it's not something that I think will be quickly solved. It will likely require both technical and policy change. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Meh, I'm wondering if we're wasting our time trying to clean up the WP IN structure as all this is happening without us even finding out about it before it's too late, just too much to keep track of. —SpacemanSpiff04:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not, but you are editing disruptively with scant regard for the intellectual property of others, and converting this to a blog for trivia that you like. —SpacemanSpiff05:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
JSTOR cleanup drive
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Hi could u point me to appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for Sikhism talk page dispute. Could you also participate in discussion or ask an experienced editor to participate. There seems to be no accountability and rampant misleading is prevalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:428:AFBF:0:30:E27E:C601 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2015. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
kindly Undelete my page Muhammad_Abdullah_Saeed, Im about to add some citation from a reliable source. I created this page few hours ago and need a little time to add citation then you may review it again.
Could you please clarify unniyarcha's caste ??? According to history she is a chekava women. Chekavas are thiyyas !!!! Arunksm (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I reported him at AIV, but they asked me to take it to ANI. He makes twenty good edits and in between vandalizes articles, then continues making good faith edits and once again intentionally makes one or two disruptive editing.Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be someone pushing one POV and dissing competitors, if you can identify what that is then the relevant link to SPI/COIN investigation can be done. I've watchlisted the talk page, any further edits and I'll step in. —SpacemanSpiff14:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he has any hidden agenda. Seems not taking vandalism and disruptive editing seriously. His edits don't show any conflict of interest to me. I am not able to get his motive. Why he will call S S Rajamouli Ediot or vandalize Batman Arkham Asylum page, or post such comments in MarnetteD's talk page. He has done so many disruptive editing. I am already burdened with Bollywood movies. I had Baahubali: The Conclusion under my watchlist, which led me to this guy. Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't have time to look deep earlier, but it seems to be a different can of worms. I see that JamesBWatson has blocked now. Let's hope that it gets the message across. —SpacemanSpiff15:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
ACE 2015 voting
I think it might be time to take ACE a bit more seriously, so I'll note my supports here. If any candidates want me to clarify my stance, I'll do it.
For any talk page stalkers who happen to read this, I'll recommend reading the following guides (alphabetical):
Definite support: Cas Liber, Drmies, Opabinia regalis (and if someone hacks SecurePoll to allow write ins -- NewYorkBrad)
Support: Keilana, Kelapstick, Timtrent
Weak Support: There are a couple of other candidates that I'm still ambivalent about.
I will not be voting neutral for any candidate. I think it better to have a smaller arbcom as it might be the right impetus to get them to stop doing busy work (one such activity eliminated by motion this past week!)—SpacemanSpiff17:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Indian Administrators
Don't you think, that we need more Indian administrators. Someone who keeps tab on India related articles. Do you know anybody who is active in Indian articles and can be a good administrator? RedPenOfDoom is active on Indian entertainment articles. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you mean admins who are interested in adminning India topics and aren't really looking to racially profile administrators. There are many, but the problem with film and TV articles is that there's a disproportionate amount of deranged fanboy and paid editing going on and it's an area that's difficult to manage because of the sheer amount of PR masquerading as news that end up being used as sources. You can try working with Dharmadhyaksha who has taken it upon himself to clean up this area. I think TheRedPenOfDoom just spends their leisure time here (to good effect) as their primary editing interests lie elsewhere, but they are a good act to follow. —SpacemanSpiff16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how much specific admining needs to be done in the area. I suppose that admins very familiar with the India/Pakistan issues and Caste issues and more active during particular times of editing might be able to more quickly identify such issues and be able to get blocks and page protects faster to limit disruption.
On the other hand, i definitely see a benefit of more editors in the subject area getting aware of BLP issues and sourcing and tone requirements and able to spread that information as a great help in maintaining quality. And at some point too, one might hope that with fewer bad articles that people would be using as examples a tipping point would be reached with less resources going to emergency fixes of crisis issues more towards building quality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
THat's a good observation on policy-educated editors being needed, TheRedPenOfDoom; it might be better if WMF India goes out with "how to edit and the policies to follow" outreach instead of a "come and edit" focus. —SpacemanSpiff04:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Maunus was around to control him (as an involved editor), but he was going in an endless cycle of very long posts pushing a particular POV. He has quietened down a bit now, but he may come back later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I did see Maunus' note and nothing after when I looked then. The editor comes by once in two years (at least that's what I saw from the contribs), the problem may be pushed out to 2017 now. —SpacemanSpiff04:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you notice ArbCom has done the 500/30 prohibition for Palestine-Israel pages now?[1] Should be helpful there too. (Patting the black labrador retriever.) Bishonen | talk16:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
But giving "reviewer" rights to everyone over 500/30 would add to admin backlog, unless it turns out to be auto-issued like autoconfirmed which then defeats the purpose of the reviewer user group. My thoughts were that a simple "SuperAutoConfirmed" could probably be easy and then "Semi-protect" can have two options -- "Allow only autoconfimed" and "Allow only superautoconfirmed", sort of like "Full protection" now has "Allow only administrators" and "Allow only template editors and administrators" (though I think it came about to be this way because template protection couldn't be split from article protection). —SpacemanSpiff17:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think of it as an extension of WP:AUTOCONFIRM, the system (or whatever the right term is) considers a user to be part of that group if they have completed 500/30 (akin to the 10/4 for autoconfirm) and should not involve admins having to grant this right. I'm guessing that at least 35% of the 1.4 million currently autoconfirmed users will be over the 500/30 threshold (including bots which do a lot of work on the covered articles) so handing out the right via admins by request to half a million users will be very problematic. If this seems a reasonable thing, then I think an ARCA motion to enable this new protection level as an arb action should probably suffice. I know that MA doesn't want the edit filter usage to continue long term as it's apparently very "expensive" (he explained what that meant, but I've happily forgotten). —SpacemanSpiff18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha and Smartse: My edit history shows my recent project of looking for resumes posted here. It's depressingly easy to do. I stopped at this one because it's so ridiculous: User:Graphikamaal. I'm just guessing Mohammed Rafi Academy was not done on a true voluntary basis. Any thoughts on a better way to deal with this? Maybe automation to find resume keywords like "biodata", or phone numbers, in user pages? - Brianhe (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear that really was a mess which I have taken care of. Mohammed Rafi Academy looks like it should go to AFD. Afraid I don't have any ideas for how to improve detection beyond searching. What terms are you looking for? There is an edit filter for self-promotion in userspace which could maybe be improved. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, I took care of a lot of U5s a couple of days back when you tagged them. I think a bot to list all newly created pages by new users or IPs in userspace with 10 digit numbers in format xxxxx-xxxxx or +xx-xxxxx-xxxxx or xxxxxxxxxx maybe helpful. It could also be done by an edit filter I think, but MusikAnimal will probably tell me why I'm wrong or this will consume too much server resources etc. The problem is not just with users in their own pages, take a look at this, an IP kept hijacking a user's page to write a bio. A bot to run through User pages and look for (a) Keywords - biodata, resume, etc etc; (b) Phone numbers - format; (c) Email ids: especially gmail.com or yahoo.co.in/yahoo.com and so on may be a feasible solution. —SpacemanSpiff13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Smartse: The first pass was just manual review of all userpages starting with "Dr." with particular emphasis on usernames that looked like full human names (i.e. looking at Joe Doaks but skipping Joe1234). Today's is more focused, the keyword is "bio data" but I think as Spiff suggests a search for several types of formatted strings would be fruitful. Another task for a future rainy day is the string "internet marketing" which I took a halfhearted attempt at about a week ago.
Another related problem. Take a look at this too User:Alexander lau and tell me if you think he's SEOing his own name. Unfortunately Wikipedia userpages are indexed by Google, so I think this is a new game people have discovered. Search on "alexander lau seo" and see what I mean. – Brianhe (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted those two. You might want to look at the additions to articles by the former. The one that I looked at was asking to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff14:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There's several userspace promo filters, I think. I like this one the most, though that's more geared toward identifying spam bots. We could probably add some phone number hooks into Special:AbuseFilter/354. Pinging primary author NawlinWiki. Just a side note, should that filter be public?Anyway the filter obviously only flags new creations. For the old ones I guess we could look into a bot. We'd have to download a dump of all the userspace pages, which has got to be enormous. The advantage being the data would locally on the file system so the bot could run very fast and not have to worry about API throttles or slow SQL queries. I'm not sure that I'll have time to work on that any time soon, but I'm sure we could find someone who does — MusikAnimaltalk19:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I deleted a lot of those Webhost-tagged user pages, Brianhe, and I was wondering how you had found them...lots of the accounts hadn't been active for years so I couldn't figure out how you came across them. Now I know! As for recent user page profiles, I think you could do a search of user pages (not user talk pages) for the string "high school" and come up with a lot of Facebook or LinkedIn-looking pages. I'm not sure why but many people who use their user page as a profile page list where they went to high school and sometimes even elementary school. LizRead!Talk!20:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Rajeshbieee
I recommended zero uploads anywhere. He is a very productive editor and makes lots of articles. I see no copyvio text issues nor any problems with his non-free movie poster uploads in the past. You can guess how I view those who lie and those involved in copyvios, but this fellow is redeeming himself with his productivity. The more work he does (adding posters to articles) the better, in my view. Shall we permit him to resume uploading posters for his creations? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
IMO, it's too early now Anna. There are some other problems with this in that stuff that is being deleted as spam and accounts blocked is now being created by him. I'm not entirely sure what the deal is, but there's something that needs investigation. I've received at least two different "paid editing" complaints now via email but I really haven't had any time to investigate either. I'm sure both editors who emailed me have this page on their watchlist, so they can comment with specific details if they don't mind. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the evidence presented at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbsibin. Even though checkuser was negative result, it seems that there's something beyond coincidence going on there. Especially when combined with some off-wiki claims of film industry connections. I'd also like to take a "wait and see" approach before any permissions are restored. – Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:C. You are not citing sources, you are copying from them. You have to add content in your own words, it should not be the words of a journalist or author from a newspaper etc. —SpacemanSpiff15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's still a copyvio. You've added a couple of words here and there and changed a source but the content largely follows what was there before. —SpacemanSpiff17:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
But "all" of the content was not copy pasted...will you help me in making that copyright violation free so that i can learn,i mean i am not getting very different words.
@Happy sage: Please use your own sandbox going forward and don't add AFC templates unless you're asking for a new article to be reviewed and created. I'll look at this in the next day or so and let you know. —SpacemanSpiff23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
well i guess AFC template gets added by default then...i did not add it on purpose.Bdw how do i submit my article for review if it is not by sandbox posting.Is it fyn if i provide link to my sandbox or Edit the article and request your review.
If it's just experimenting for an existing article then you shouldn't send it to AFC as it is an understaffed project focused on new articles. In this case you had placed it in my sandbox, not yours, causing the problem of someone deciding to move it. Just place it at User:Happy sage/sandbox and if a review template gets added, just remove it. Cheers. —SpacemanSpiff02:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy sage, from a copyright standpoint your current sandbox is ok. However, please note that what you're adding requires a lot of copyedit and cleanup. e.g. "Britishes", no spaces after punctuation, sentence construction issues -- "But,pressures to start the mining are on rise in Karnataka". cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't quite understand your proposal. Can you clarify and perhaps give a few examples? Like one of the commentators said, I don't know what "inherited notability" means. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you're specifically looking at ghost written books that get reviewed because XYZ is a page 3 celeb. It's an oddball case and too difficult to base something on. But if you make the criteria stricter it's going to be even more difficult to write an article on These Errors are Correct or The Perishable Empire. It's difficult to say that the number of reviews these two receive should be treated higher than XYZ's book which was covered on a daily basis by Times of India and Hindustan Times because the author is a page 3 celeb. This is more to do with using those sources to establish notability than the guideline itself; any review of The Perishable Empire was surely written by a writer whose opinion is valued as a book reviewer while the specific book you're referencing has reviews from film writers, gossip columnists, and such. This shouldn't be about inherited notability, rather the discussion should be about the quality of sources; but that is a losing battle as this history at WP:DSI would suggest where glamsham and indiaglitz are considered quality sources! —SpacemanSpiff13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good that you at least understood where I am going. But it is damn difficult to talk about the quality of the review or reviewer. Every review is a notable review as our guideline does not suggest anything on that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been trying to write articles relevant to Indo-Anglian literature for as long as I've been here and this isn't a new issue for me. The problem of Page 3 celebs getting anything related to them kept while Sahitya Akademi award winning literature hardly ever getting covered is a pet peeve of mine. —SpacemanSpiff04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well... we can't change off-wiki things like getting reviews written for SA winners but we at least can try and hinder the page 3 publishings by tightening our criteria around there. But doesn't seem to be working much... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Deletion of Srishti Madurai
Dear Volunteer of Wiki
On what basis you deleted the page of Srishti Madurai on Wiki ?
Your deletion is against freedom of speech and expression, the page was created with all needed references and you must explain on what basis you deleted it ?, you just deleted it because its a LGBTQIA group ?, being administrator you are behaving like a dictator, this hurts the SM community, Please retain the Srishti Madurai page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.140.164 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't violated any copyrights and the article was well written. I mean free speech not in wiki sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.140.164 (talk)
As NeilN said above, there's no free speech here. Your account talk page has the relevant policy links. If you continue to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising or copy paste content from elsewhere then you are going to be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff04:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are not giving a proper explanation to this then we need to move legally because we have not clearly violated any rights and just because you are contributor you cannot behave like a dictator. The way you respond to us shows that how egoistic you are and u hate towards a particular LGBT minority community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.210.90 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:NLT. You've already been blocked for using Wikipedia for social media marketing and copyright violations. That you can not understand the notices left on your talk page isn't the problem of editors here. —SpacemanSpiff03:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
regarding speedy deletion of Sankalp- Annual Social Convention of IIT Roorkee
Hi user
how do i get this page validated.
i need to create the same page with same details.
Cheers for the ping. I'm not sure whether it is worth blocking those IPs as they're mobile IPs and have only made one edit. I suggest Vin09 just ignores but if you get pestered further let me know. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Check this user. Mainly interested in movies and artists with very low popularity. Never replies to talk page messages.--TheAvengers16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That kind of stuff is what interests Dharmadhyaksha, so maybe he can take a look (I didn't find anything glaringly bad on the couple of pages I just looked at), I'm quite short on wiki time and the Indian film area is one that can just waste a ton of it. Also, in reg to your recent post on ANI, you may want to do a comparison with Arfaz(talk·contribs·count). I haven't had the time to look deeply, but I found some similar copyvios. It'll keep you busy! —SpacemanSpiff17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
