User talk:Keegan/August12-December13

219.137.181.83 and 14.151.6.207

I think the two IPs may be the same person, http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/219.137.181.83 and http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/14.151.6.207 show the same location Jonathanfu (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

let's add http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/219.136.60.221 to the list

LTA

You can find his IPs here:zh:WP:GZIP#使用IP地址. Please perform a range block. --Makecat_Talk 05:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the resource, Makecat. There will be some checking of IP ranges listed on that proxy network in short order, as well as some friendly range blocks as needed. Keegan (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of his IPs are dynamic IPs from Guangzhou, China. IPs from other places may be open proxies. --Makecat_Talk 05:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

You have a new message on my talk page, and an FYI here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:N24680.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:N24680.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, kind bot notice. The image was removed by vandalism. I have reverted the edit, and the image is again in fair use. Thanks again, and happy automatic editing to you. Keegan (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS access

Could you please restore my access on OTRS. I had it removed last month. I want to get it back now. Thank you very much--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done! Keegan (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA

I didn't exactly want to start an argument about this, but I guess I was quite concerned that the CCI was not mentioned at all in the nomination statement, or in the questions - I see that as essential as mentioning that someone was blocked (which he actually was for it, if I'm not mistaken), or were sanctioned in an ArbCom case, etc. as close paraphrasing and copyright issues can expose the site to legal trouble. Copyright has been a touchy issue with a few RFAs (QuiteUnusual comes to mind) and caused a staffer to lose staff rights (among other things), and caused an arbitrator to stand down. Admins are also given automatic clerk status at WP:CCI and it's essential that they have an understanding of copyright and plagiarism-related issues. So in other words, something like that really should be disclosed to the community.

I've also seen plenty of admins without a lot of content experience blow off concerns regarding content-related issues, and I guess it hit a nerve; that's a big deal to me. I suppose there are more diplomatic ways I could have expressed my concerns, and I apologize for not using them. --Rschen7754 08:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, good Rschen7754, as you know any exchange in RfA seems a little hot than it actually might be. I simply feel that it is the nominator's job to present how and why an account can use the mop if capable. I didn't feel it my duty to point out something that I felt was neither of actual substance nor a still active case. This is why I left it out. It is unfortunately that my philosophy and style caused you to feel miffed. There certainly was no harm intended. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the thing is that you might not view the CCI as a "big deal"... but some other editors might consider this a deal-breaker. --Rschen7754 01:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about being collaborative and knowing policy and guidelines, when to trust yourself, when to trust others, when to ignore all rules, and when to disregard. It is not about a singular conflict, block, incident, investigation, whatever. That is what has killed RfA in a time when we can't beg someone to use a tool. The summation of the user's experience is the test, and if Kevin has been found to closely paraphrase say, seven articles out of his hundreds and the edits are dated, that's just being a Wikipedian. He isn't violating copyright.

Just a thought. Keegan (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Rschen7754, one of the first major things I ever did as an admin was closing the state roads naming convention 2, when you asked me to, back in 2006 when I was fresh off the block as a new admin. I didn't have a clue about the conflict, or who you were, you asked me to be an admin, and I did that. I wasn't a content creator then, I am not now, yet you still trusted me with that task. I do not feel that the standards for RfA should have changed as they have since that gritty time when bans were handed out for how to name roads. We're talking about adminship, Rschen7754, it's not a big deal. Keegan (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gutów

Hi, thank you for helping to move this page Azylber (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting "7 most random things to do"

>(Deletion log); 01:53 . . Keegan (talk | contribs) deleted page 7 most random things to do ‎(I can think of more random things)

It might fit for Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles. How many was on the list? iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 08:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seven. Pretty lame as well, considering they are school-oriented pranks. Keegan (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So no, I wouldn't grace its brief existence with commemoration. Keegan (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My user page.

You could have just told me about my user page without deleting it, and I would have gladly fixed it... Can you put my user page back, and let me fix it myself? And by the way, would it violate any policies if I put what I had on my user page on my "sandbox" page instead? Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored your page with the userboxes and format you had for all of that. Unfortunately you could not have just removed the information, it had to be suppressed from the page history. Please take care when posting personal information on Wikipedia, particularly regarding others. Keegan (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keegan. You have new messages at TheGoofyGolfer's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello

After you deleted my user page, I got thinking, can you block User: Scientific Alan, since I no longer use that account? I just don't want anyone discovering my old account's password, claiming they are the real Scientific Alan, and having me blocked. And please add in description of the block that it is only because I don't use that account anymore, so people don't think I was a vandal or anything like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan 2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Done. You can redirect the account's userpage and talk page to your current one if you'd like. Keegan (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Keegan from Shanker Pur

I am not Scotpina. How do I prove that? My IP address is used by others. I would appreciate any help. Shanker Pur (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Shanker Pur also emailed me, and I have responded by that route. Keegan (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI Clarification

I'm a bit confused by what you meant by the comment you left at this SPI case. I'm just trying to close out some cases, and am not sure what your intent was. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that we didn't need a check to conclude those were socks, so use common sense accordingly as an admin if you with to block the accounts. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time blocking them because they're certainly throwaways, but I know that some are more ordered in going ahead and blocking out of procedure. Keegan (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrickdene

Hi! Would you mind clarifying the result of this? Thanks! --Rschen7754 21:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Baseball7[0-9]

There's also Baseball74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Apparently, this user doesn't understand that he's getting "incorrect password" because his accounts are actually getting globally locked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I left a message on the talk page of the current account's incarnation, Baseball76. We'll see how that goes. Keegan (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Baseball74 appears to be the current account, it was the latest one I blocked for vandalism on MediaWiki.org.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bleh. Keep an eye out. Keegan (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

now I know why it keeps saying incorrect password. My accounts are locked. Thinks 108.243.173.28 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [1]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Liaison

Hey, gratz on the new WMF post! - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's strange that Wikimania was a year ago... Keegan (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like yesterday we eating Middle Eastern food and getting the Pending Changes Level 2 mess all sorted out. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Our conversation about the failure of communications for Pending Changes is what is inspiring me in this gig. Thanks, Dank :) Keegan (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Community Liaison

Hi, Keegan. I hope that you still remember me. Just wanted to say congratulations on your new WMF post. Best wishes. --Meno25 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Meno25! Of course I remember you. It's even stranger that it's been six years or so that I nominated you for adminship here... time flies. Keegan (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this now. Congratulations, Keegan. Hope you can keep your head about you. :) Killiondude (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I shall. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Keegan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Meno25 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Nikki Nova‎

Hi Keegan,

You protected Nikki Nova‎ because of BLP violations in 2010, the page currently has a very low edit rate. Would you consider shifting it over to pending-changes protection. Regards, Crazynas ^t 19:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Crazynas ^t 07:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday?

:-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

PRISM Wikipedia is watching you :) This is the first year I didn't have time to update on my actual birthday Thank you, VisualEditor. I appreciate it! Keegan (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About Visual editor

I see you're as old as I am, congrats!... ok... You left me a message on fi-wiki that VisualEditor will be released as beta software to this Wikipedia at the end of the month. I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, because it's already released there as beta software, or is it not? Does it mean that it will be the default editor at the end of the month? I updated little bit page fi:Wikipedia:Visuaalinen muokkain and made a local feedback page (fi:Wikipedia:Visuaalinen muokkain/Palaute) as well page about TemplateData (and let the community to know about what it is). Do you have more suggestions how I could help? --Stryn (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Stryn:!

VisualEditor on the Finnish Wikipedia is the alpha release, the beta release will be rolled out for editors tentatively at the end of this month, perhaps the middle of next month depending on a few things. The difference is of course better software but also instead of being an opt-in trial, it will simply be available as an editor without an opt-out (as it is now here on the English Wikipedia).

It looks like the messaging you've done and the translations are wonderful, thank you for helping your community :) I would like to clarify that VisualEditor is not the default editor, it is a new alternative to editing other than just through the source code. Source editing is not going anywhere, it will still be there for all those used to it, but we hope that long-time editors on the Finnish Wikipedia will try out VisualEditor and find ways to use it that might make some of their work easier than just editing the source. There are some tasks that users may find left better/easier for them just by editing source. We hope that the community finds both platforms for editing welcome for old and new editors alike, and perhaps help grow the Finnish Wikipedia community.

The pages look great, I look forward to the finished translation of the User Guide so that we can copy it over to Finnish for a local resource. Let me know if you have any other questions about this. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I just thought why there is a text "VisualEditor is in 'beta' and so may not let you edit everything yet" if it's alpha, not beta. I will translate the user guide. --Stryn (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Stryn:, ah, I see what you are referring to. Yes, the product is in beta now. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Abandoned" AFC after one day?

Unless I'm tracking wrong, you deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Venke pally under G13 when it was declined less than a day. Now the author has copy-pasted some earlier draft and resubmitted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Venkepally. This means we've lost the History, and also the efforts I did to improve the article are wasted.

Am I missing something, or is this a mistake, or some special policy where articles are "abandoned" in a day? Can you help fix the situation by merging the Histories of the old and new version so we can see the history of Declines, and so I can rescue some of my cleaned-up work? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, that was a mistake, it was tagged in the middle of a bunch from the past six months. I'll undelete and merge the page histories to your last revision. My apologies. Happy editing to you! Keegan (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas:, restored, merged, you can find the version you think is best. Again, apologies for the inconvenience. Keegan (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

unblocking of Arifhasan23

Please revisit your decision to unblock Arifhasan23. If you will compare the 18:59, 16 March 2013 revision of User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11—the last revision in which that text appeared—to the 09:38, 25 March 2013 revision of Arifhasan23's sandbox which he later moved to Certified Penetration Testing Consultant you will see that they essentially match.

Also please note that in his unblock request, Arifhasan23 wrote "one of my well known person requested me to upload the content in Wikipedia for which I am blocked," which I take to mean that he is saying he copy-pasted the article at someone else's request.

In the article's history there are eight edits by Arifhasan23 (not counting its creation or moving).

Wikipedia:EVASION#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_blocked_editors says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." This puts the burden on Arifhasan23 to justify the creation of and edits to the CPTC article; what he wrote in his unblocking request does not, in my opinion, provide any such justification.

The Sublimeharmony account is believed to have been operated by the operator of Morning277, an account that was blocked well before the edits above. As I showed clearly above, Arifhasan23 reposted the text that Sublimeharmony had earlier placed in a sandbox. Arifhasan23 stated that he did this at someone else's request. —rybec 15:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I commented on this unblock at the spi A failure of checkuser does not disprove meatpuppettry. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rybec:, @DGG (NYPL):, As with anything I do here, anyone is welcome to reverse what I do and I do not mind, including reblocking the account. I read through the discussions with the user on IRC in the -help channel as well as everything written in the SPI (as much as possible, that is notably massive), and the user's talk page, and I communicated with the user as well. My unblock was on the good faith condition that it is understood what and why their editing was on shaky ground ethically and by our policy on meatpuppetty, and I'm convinced that the user was unaware that what was going on was wrong. The user agreed to stay away from AfC and only work on editing existing articles in a constructive manner. As such, I unblocked. I do not believe that blocks should stay in place pro forma on Wikipedia as it goes against our values once such communication has taken place.

Again, any admin is free to reblock. I think it would be quite a shame and very un-wiki like, but that's just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. When reading your note in Arifhasan23's block log, all I was able to read was "Not a likely sock based on CU" which gave me the impression that you believed he did nothing on behalf of Morning277 and that there were no conditions on the unblocking. From your response above, I see that I received a wrong impression, one that I think most other readers would also arrive at. Is it possible to add to the block log some of the information from your comment above (perhaps by re-blocking then immediately unblocking), and if it's possible, would you be willing to do so? —rybec 19:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see how that read as I did not intend. I will amend as requested. Check the log in a couple of minutes and let me know if I can answer any other questions you might have. Keegan (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —rybec 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In my comment with time-stamp 20:20, 15 July in the SPI I've reported some more accounts that edited a group of articles related to the article edited by Arifhasan23. I suspect that the checkuser information may show at least some of these accounts are connected. Perhaps you'd be interested in taking a look. —rybec 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a wheel war and just choose to step back from the case. It isn't required that the blocking admin is consulted but it is usually good idea, particularly in case like this, involving the most prolific abuser of multiple accounts on the website. Suffice it to say that Morning is a corporation (I've been familiar for over a year), not an individual, and the meatpuppets (which are determinable by an established but unpublished criteria) have always been treated as socks because they are not just coordinating, but acting by proxy and uploading material that is directly created by the banned user. I would note that this is likely a copyright violation as well. I respect that Keegan is a CU, thus has access to information I don't but I imagine the inverse is true in this particular case. Regardless, I assume this means you want to resolve the rest of the outstanding issues, which is fine as a CU is needed there anyway. I've already checked a couple thousand pages and made over 260 blocks, so letting someone else finish it is probably best. I will be happy to forward my private notes, just ping me on my talk page if you want them, as I don't normally watch this page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Err, @Dennis Brown:, you seem to be misconstruing my intentions here a bit. You've done a great job on this case and with SPI in general, and I have no qualms with how this remarkably complex case has unfolded. My unblock of this singular account was based on communication with the user in question and conditions around the unblock. As I said above, it's pretty clear that the user was working as a proxy, this is probably true, however to me it is also clear that the user was never told that their actions were wrong, that we had policies against it, and that the company was using them to circumvent their ban. Once this was cleared up with the user and they recognized their mistakes, I find it appropriate to unblock and to let them have a chance to actually edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. It's certainly a better outcome than them just creating another account and continuing on as before, I think. It was no disrespect to you, and I am not planning on this occurring for all of the mentioned accounts. If you want to reblock the account, by all means do, and I wouldn't consider it a wheel war. It's a wiki, it's not personal to me. Keegan (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my concern, since they were all "meat", that you would have to unblock them all. The last time I arranged to have someone in this group unblock, I got my head bitten off by Arb and a couple of Arbs seem to still holding a grudge over it (hence the silly "trainee" tag assigned to my role after a year), although they won't address me directly, in public or private. I'm not mad at you, but the inconsistency with SPI in general makes it very difficult to do a proper job. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know the story behind the issue with the Arbs, so that's not for me to comment specifically. Non-specific, it is disappointing for me to hear of someone's head getting bitten off any time they are acting in good faith. That doesn't seem to me to be either pragmatic or constructive, especially since we're all volunteers. Keegan (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 cents here... I don't think it was the best idea to unblock the account before consulting with Dennis, seeing as he was the one who is most familiar with a lot of these paid editing cases, and knowing that he put a few full days into trying to sort the mess out. It's the general expectation on this wiki or on any Wikimedia wiki that I've been an admin on, that you discuss with the admin before reversing admin actions unilaterally, except in the case of obvious and unambiguous error, and CUs don't get an automatic pass on that. There are possible reasons to believe that the account may not have been entirely truthful, as have been mentioned elsewhere. I'm not planning on blocking that account (or even doing anything on that case - too lazy ) but just something to note for the future. --Rschen7754 10:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mad at Keegan, and I'm about to email all the Functionaries, which would include him. I think this will shine some light on the matter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just saying as a general principle, it's not a good thing (and I've definitely said similar things on Wikidata). I've had too many sock/LTA blocks undone by admins who thought they were helping out the poor repressed innocent user... when they only had half of the information. I also find it problematic that the person who spent several days trying to sort out the mess wasn't contacted, especially since if I remember right, I strongly hinted on IRC that this might be a more appropriate course of action than a unilateral unblock. --Rschen7754 10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Keegan: Hi, Keegan. You had invited me to ask further questions and I asked one in my 21:33, 15 July 2013 post here, but did not see a response. After you unblocked Arifhasan23 I noticed some other accounts which also edited existing articles related to Bangladesh and also edited new articles about Mile2 and its certifications, or other new articles that appear to be from the Morning277 operation. If you're willing, would you please take a look at whether the checkuser data indicates a connection?

• Arifhasan23 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Securitybot (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sunilkumarlore (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Carer1256 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MOmarFarooq (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yanis ahmed (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alonejobel (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

—rybec 13:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Like the other accounts, they bounce all over the place on fairly popular ranges. I'd go with behavioral suspicions. Keegan (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. —rybec 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

as there was further mention of the Arifhasen account, I commented at spi here DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles deletion

Dear Keegan,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Notifications (Echo)

Thank you for contacting me about the Romanian translations. I left you a message on my home wiki here. Cheers!--—Sebitalk 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement on Chelsea Manning arbitration case request

Hi Keegan, I have removed the statement you made on the Chelsea Manning case request because it didn't relate to the reason a case should be accepted or declined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Keegan (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned up there that I was happy for you to add a new statement, which you've now done. Also, just letting you know that my removal of your statement (and hence the statement and you) are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Removal of relevant comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Callanecc. I appreciate the further note. Keegan (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning

In light of this[2], maybe you would like to add a reworded statement? I think the global living persons policy draft was a highly relevant addition to that discussion. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, resubmitted. Keegan (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Keegan.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Notifications (Echo)

Responded here. Cheers!—Sebitalk 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your communication on nl wikipedia re. the VE

Hi Keegan, I'm interested in your communication regarding (delayed) introduction of VE on the Dutch Wikipedia. Are there certain editors you have specific contact with? How would you describe your cooperation with them? Thank you. -- Stratoprutser (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've had contact with specific editors on IRC and by email. Most involves either having something translated or communicating how the Dutch community thinks/feels/works. I've found the community to be very cooperative and polite; my talk page has some thanks on it. Why do you ask? Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to hear the Dutch community left a good impression. A certain prolific editor on Dutch wikipedia, one who seems to me to make the introduction for the VE more difficult than absolutely necessary, claims that together with you he actually is facilitating the introduction of VE, and I found that a bit hard to believe. -- Stratoprutser (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time talking to him on IRC about VE. I wouldn't say he's been facilitating since that implies making things easier, but he did set up some pages for me (like the feedback page). That was helpful. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Arifhasan23

Hi Keegan! Back in July you unblocked User:Arifhasan23 with the comment "the user will be staying away from AfC". As a quick question, was that a condition of unblocking, or just a general agreement? Sorry to bother you with this, but I figured that it was worth following up. - Bilby (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bilby. The answer is yes :) I asked the user to stay away from AfC, and he said yes, but for now or in the future, and I said both. I asked the user to please only edit voluntarily on articles they could contribute to. Keegan (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. Unfortunately, it seems that the editor moved to an alternative account and has continued doing paid jobs through AFC, so I may need to chase things up after all. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same person? This account was a part of the Morning277 sockpuppet case and accounts almost always look identical due to the characteristics of paid editing. Keegan (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely sure. The Arifhasan23/Morning277 connection was a bit iffy, as the criteria for identifying Morning277 meatpuppets is very broad, but the user has pretty much self-identified off-wiki. I can't post it on-wiki, because it would involve outing, but the connection is a lot more than behavioural. - Bilby (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you could email me about this, that'd be great. Thanks for keeping me informed. Keegan (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons deletion request

Hi, Keegan. I hope that you are alright. There is a deletion request about an image you originally uploaded. You may want to voice your opinion. Thank you. --Meno25 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! Keegan (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Keegan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Meno25 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr

Hello, Keegan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Lexein (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)